-iii-

Cover Photo courtesy of the United States Department of Agriculture, AgriculturalResearch Service, Photo Library

United StatesDepartment ofAgriculture

Cooperative State

Research,

Education, and

Extension Service

Agricultural ResearchService

National AgriculturalLibrary

Animal WelfareInformation Center

PurdueUniversity

Edited by

Richard Reynnells, Ph.DU.S. Department of AgricultureCooperative State Research, Education, and Extension ServicePlant and Animal Systems

Published by:

U. S. Department of Agriculture

Agricultural Research Service

National Agricultural Library

Animal Welfare Information Center

Beltsville, Maryland 20705

E-mail: awic@nal.usda.gov

Web site: www.nal.usda.gov/awic

May 2003

-iii-

Table of Contents

Page

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

Welcome and Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Session 1 - Stockmanship and Training

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Ethical Considerations of Pork Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Availability of Resources, Models, and Training Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Overview of the Evaluation of Stockmanship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Session 2 - Practical Sow Housing System Design

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

The Crate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Group Housing of Sows in Small Pens:

Advantages, Disadvantages, and Recent Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Sow Well-Being in Extensive Gestating Sow Housing:

Outdoor and Hoop Barn Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Large Group Systems for Gestating Sows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Session 3 - Consumer Perspectives

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

USDA Process Verified Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Appendices

A. Speaker Biographies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

B. Speaker and Contributor Contact Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

C. Future Research Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

D. Speaker Responses to Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

E. Other Questions to Speakers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

F. Availability of Resources, Models, and Training Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

G. Resource Farmers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

H. Summary of Evaluations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

-iv-

Preface

Richard ReynnellsNational Program Leader, Animal Production Systems

U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service (CSREES)

Funds have been made available for the USDA/CSREES and the Agricultural ResearchService (ARS) to provide assistance to the animal industries in the area of animal well-being. Congressional directive S. RPT. 107-33 defines the supplemental appropriations forthese research, education, and training programs.

The USDA/ARS funded research in FY2002 on sow housing at their Livestock Issues Unit,Lubbock Texas in collaboration with Texas Tech University, the University of Minnesota,and the University of Illinois. Objectives of this research are to measure sow stress incurrent (crate) and alternative housing systems, and to conduct an economic evaluation todetermine the cost of conversion from crates or tether systems to one of several alternativesystems. A societal concern is the individual confinement of sows, which the pork system(industry, university, government) is attempting to address, in part through this researchand educational programs.

CSREES-led training and educational efforts complement ARS research activities, so thesymposium and other programs are to be developed around swine housing andmanagement issues. The symposium organizing committee is composed of about twentyrepresentatives from animal welfare organizations, industry and USDA. The committeeattempted to create a balanced program when defining topics and speakers for thissymposium, which was held at the P.O.R.K. Academy, in conjunction with the Pork Expo inDes Moines on June 5, 2002. Access to the presentations via audio- and video-tapes isavailable to farmers and others not able to participate directly. Future educational andtraining programs will utilize these proceedings, and concepts discussed during thesymposium. Future educational programs will likewise strive for a scientific and balancedapproach and will complement existing material, including results from the ARS researchprojects. A one hour video and companion CDROM/DVD program will be developed. Training programs will be in cooperation with organizations such as the National PorkBoard, agricultural universities, and non-government organizations from the professional,protection and industry communities.

Major issues in swine production are gestation stalls, and farrowing crates used inintensive production facilities. While transportation and “downer” animal concerns exist,the training modules will provide the majority of information on these and other aspects ofmanagement.

A broad advisory committee has provided input for the symposium and training material. Aspeaker from the European Union was invited to participate in order to gain a betterunderstanding of their perspective of these management issues, including trainingprograms and alternatives to intensive confinement. The symposium was open to thepublic, with topics that included: intensive and extensive confinement management

-v-

practices and training programs, and their effect on animal well-being; niche marketdevelopment; certification programs; consumer perspectives; and identification ofadditional researchable items. The proceedings are being provided after the meeting toallow inclusion of research recommendations and other information. The proceedings andother material will also be used in follow-up and other intensive training opportunities. Thetraining material will be able to stand alone as educational programs, or as part of othertraining or educational programs.

-1-

Welcome and Introduction

Richard ReynnellsNational Program Leader, Animal Production Systems

USDA/CSREES

On behalf of the organizing committee, sponsors, and Purdue University as the lead university, Iwelcome you to the Swine Housing and Well-Being Symposium, Stockmanship and TrainingSession. Our other two sessions will take place this afternoon. We are indebted to the PorkAcademy and Kent Feeds for agreeing to include our symposium in the Academy agenda for 2002.

This symposium was made possible by the allocation of funds from Congress through the USDASecretary’s office to the Research, Education and Economics Under Secretary to address animalwell-being issues. Part of this allocation was made available to CSREES to provide leadership inthe development of this symposium and other educational programs for the swine system, andoutreach support to complement related USDA Agricultural Research Service programs.

You were provided an evaluation form as part of your registration packet. It is important to knowyour opinion of the topics and speakers for all sections of the symposium. It is also very importantto have your opinion of the types of well-being educational and training programs that the swineindustry would find helpful. These comments will help provide direction for the balance of our workon this very important project.

The organizing committee is composed of representatives from farm, commodity, university, andprofessional organizations that have a commitment to serving the swine industry, and by well-beingadvocates serving niche sectors of the industry through hands-on well-being programs, and animalprotection group representatives. These same people will cooperate to coordinate development ofthe educational and training programs that build on this symposium. You will be sent a copy of theproceedings after the symposium. Videotapes and audiotapes of the symposium will be availablethrough Purdue University and commodity and other organizations for only a handling fee.

Questions will be written on index cards or other paper. Questions will be taken to the Moderator,who will read the question and ask speakers to respond. Audience member interactions withspeakers will take place after the Question and Answer period. If there is time after a presentation,the Moderator may or may not chose to allow a question using this same procedure. Speakers arereminded to stay on time because this is a tight schedule.

We have an outstanding panel of speakers, who have many years of experience in their field ofexpertise. They have been instructed to challenge you and to provide you a chance to see well-being issues in a realistic and perhaps different light. An emphasis on maintaining and expandingfarmer’s current stewardship roles, and exploring the well-being of animals offers positiveopportunities for both the swine and the owner. Speakers will discuss background information,ethical considerations, resources available to you for training, retraining and orientation ofemployees, and stockmanship considerations. We hope you find the symposium beneficial.

-2-

-3-

IntroductionAn A and Five E’s:

Training Stockpeople to BeMaximizers of Pig State-of-Being

Dr. Stanley E. CurtisDepartment of Animal Sciences

University of Illinois, Urbana

It is my pleasure in the next few minutes to kick off this morning’s session onStockmanship and Training. As the pork industry moves into a new posture vis a vis theanimal-welfare issue, even more attention needs to be paid to the nature of responsiblestockmanship and the training of pig keepers to be responsible stockpeople.

The panel of speakers assembled by the program committee --- Ray Stricklin, Jean Larson(Cindi Smith), Peter English --- are highly qualified to their assigned tasks today. It is aprivilege to say I have known each of the three for at least two decades. They are highlyrespected by their peers around the world for not only what they promise but also for whatthey deliver. I am as anxious as you must be to hear what they have to say to us herenow.

What I have to say at the outset falls into three categories:

• An A• Four E’s• A Fifth E

The A: Attitude

Attitude. The stockperson must be endowed with a proper attitude of just what a pig is;must respect the pig; must protect the pig; must support the pig; must be kind to the pig.

Attitude. The stockperson must be curious about what the pig needs, and anxious to fulfillthose needs. The primary needs are for adequate and accessible feed and water, shelter,health care. The secondary needs are for protection from predators, injurious equipmentand facilities, accidents. The tertiary needs that support acceptable pig emotional states.

Attitude. As mentioned earlier, the stockperson must at all times treat the pig withkindness and respect. Use the brain 99 percent of the time, brawn 1 percent. Applynecessary goading pressure dispassionately. Appropriately design and wisely usehandling facilities and aids.

Attitude. Results from studies of pigs in The Netherlands, Australia, the United Kingdom,and the USA; with cows in the United Kingdom, Australia, and the USA; with chickens inthe USA and elsewhere all lead to the conclusion that not only is kind treatment of animalsat the hands of humans the humane way, it also is the healthy, biologically efficient,financially profitable way.

Attitude. Some people make good stockpeople, some do not. Some are exceedingly

-4-

trainable, others are not. Management should exercise zero tolerance for abusive handlingand neglectful keeping of pigs. If, due to inadequate state labor laws, an employee maynot be terminated for her first lapse, at least she should be transferred to a positioninvolved in no way with direct or indirect animal contact.

The Four Es: Economics, Ethics, Emotions, Esthetics

Economics. Face it: the pork industry can no longer afford to let economics be by far themajor determinant of management decisions related to pig state-of-being.

Ethics. Even philosophers gravely disagree with one another as to the ethics of animalcare and use. If someone today says, “The ethics of the situation is thus and so,” thespeaker is either naive or engaging in calumny. There is no single monolithic ethicaljudgement as to where to draw the lines with respect to pig state-of-being. Moreover, whatare actually emotional and esthetic issues are sometimes --- advertently or inadvertently ---mistaken as being ethical in nature when they clearly are not.

Emotions. Emotional attitudes about pork production systems mostly have as their basisuneasiness, anxiety, even fear of the unknown or unfamiliar. They have to do with thenature of the human observer, not necessarily the state-of-being of the pig.

Esthetics. Many people do not fancy visiting a pork-production unit. Just as theyshudderingly shun popping their head into the mortuary operatory or hospital surgery suite,or as they would not enjoy even a quick peek over the top edge of a sewage-treatment-plant collection tank.

A Fifth E: Expectations

As a pluralistic society wrestling with a difficult, multifaceted issue, we must be sure thatexpectations regarding pig state-of-being are realistic. It is unrealistic to expect or set agoal that any pig on earth should experience well-being all the time. We humans --- with allof our intelligence, preventatives, nostrums --- do not achieve that. Instead, we shouldexpect and hope that a pig on a contemporary pork production farm will experience well-being most of the time, fair-being some of the time, ill-being infrequently. It will be futile toset perfection as a goal along this line if we sincerely expect to achieve that goal. Incidentally, a realistic goal in this matter should be based on performance criteria, notdesign criteria. Design specifications tell us at what temperature the thermostat should beset, whereas performance specifications tell us what constitutes a thermally comfortablepig. A thermally comfortable pig should be the goal, regardless of what thermostat settingis required in a particular (unique) pork-production setting to achieve that thermal comfort. Myriad factors determine thermal comfort, and sometimes the pigs will be comfortable at athermostat setting 10 or more degrees above or below what some book or table orregulation calls for. In fact, in a practical setting, I am cool to the idea of design-specification tables and the like. They cause as much or more trouble in terms of pigcomfort than they resolve. In fact, I go so far as saying it would not bother me to see thethermostats in pig houses with the numbers erased from the dials. Simply watch the pigs.

-5-

By the way they behave, they will tell you whether or not they are comfortable.

Recapitulation

1. Stockpeople must exercise a proper attitude toward the pigs.2. Ethics in this matter is still mostly an exercise for ethicist philosophers, not for

activists and politicians.3. Thinking based on emotions and esthetics should not be confused with thinking

based on ethical analyses.4. Neither can economics any longer be the sole or even main criterion upon which

management decisions bearing on pig state-of-being are made.5. All engaged in the discussion of pig state-of-being must have realistic expectations

of the goal. This simply is in the best interests of the pig. And the goal should bebased on performance standards, not design standards.

-6-

-7-

Ethical Considerations of Pork Production

W. Ray StricklinDepartment of Animal and Avian Sciences

University of MarylandCollege Park, MD 20742

Overview

Pork production has a major impact on the lives of many humans and involves the lives ofmillions of pigs. The impact on individual beings ranges from negative to positive, fromsuffering to pleasure. This range applies to both humans and other animals. Traditionally,swine producers have worked to minimize the cost of pork and have given relatively littledirect attention to issues such as animal welfare. Today, meat has been made readilyavailable and at cheap prices, but now questions are being raised as to whether someaspects of animal production ought to be modified and many of the concerns are related toissues such as animal welfare. Ethics is the discipline that deals with questions about whatought to be. While many of the questions involve animal welfare, other questions arerelated to human well-being (changes in rural life, farm and food processor labor issues,etc.) and also to the impact of pork production on the environment. In this discussion, it isargued that ethics is a necessary part of planning and development for sustainable porkproduction systems to be attained. Survey information indicates strong public support forthe position that food-producing animals ought to be treated such that they experience anappropriate quality of life. Specifically, the public expresses greatest concern for issuesthat are related to intensive confinement such as gestation stalls. Additionally, the publichas a highly favorable view of the term “rights” in relation to animals. However, truevegetarians make up only 2% of the American population and there has been no trendtoward increased vegetarianism over the past 50 years.

It is the primary contention of this presentation that the public does not wish to stop eatingmeat but strongly believes that animals should receive appropriate treatment during theirlives. Therefore, it is proposed that the establishment of pork production practices that areviewed as ethically defensible is not only the right thing to do but is also a pragmatic actionto be taken as a marketing tool.

Introduction

Ethics is about treating others fairly. Historically, others have typically included only otherhumans. Today, there is a growing tendency in discussions about applied ethics to includeanimals and the environment. Accordingly, the term bioethics is sometimes used in thisregard especially in reference to biotechnology and genetically modified organisms. Thetitle of this presentation at first appearance may sound as if the following discussion willaddress honesty and fairness in the business dealings among swine producers. However,I will attempt to address ethical issues inclusive of both humans and other animals and theenvironment. Thus, the current discussion may be considered to be one about bioethics.

Ethics has to do with attempting to be objective in determining appropriate moral behavioron the part of humans. A basic premise of moral philosophy is that humans --- unlike theother animals --- have the ability to consider what constitutes right and wrong behavior and

-8-

also to act accordingly. Additionally, it can be argued that because we have this ability, wehave an obligation to use it. In this paper I will not address all ethical issues associatedwith pork production --- to do so would take a much more detailed effort. For the sake ofbrevity in this presentation, I will not address specifically the very important ethical topic ofmolecular gene manipulation. Neither is this paper an attempt to build complete moralarguments either in support or criticism of the swine industry, as a philosopher wouldpossibly do. Instead, in this presentation, I will attempt to raise some questions that havemoral implications and offer some observations on each.

Can’t science settle all disputes --- about everything?

We live in a time when science is making enormous strides in adding to our understandingof the natural world and resultant technology is providing us with new products andtreatment that add to our longevity, comfort and pleasure in living style. Science tells usmuch about the universe, how we came to be, what is needed to feed ourselves, and manyother details about our natural system that are of major importance in our daily lives. Science tells answers to what is types of questions, but science cannot tell us what oughtto be. Accordingly, it is contended that the pork industry should not attempt to use sciencealone as the basis for contending positions relative to pork production.

It is not uncommon to hear persons in agriculture contend that someone or some group isnot being scientific in their thoughts and behavior. Animal rights persons are oftenaccused of being radicals acting emotionally and not scientific in their thinking. TheEuropeans are sometimes accused of not being scientific because they refuse to acceptgenetically modified food products and have legislated animal welfare codes of practicebased on emotion and not objective facts from science. I have heard European animalscientists accuse American animal scientists of not being very scientific about animalwelfare. The American public is sometimes accused of not being scientific when they donot readily accept irradiated food products.

In the above statements about others not being scientific, the contention is basically thatscience is synonymous with objective thinking and anyone who does not accept theviewpoint of the advocate is not being objective. It is also common to hear statements tothe effect that only science should be employed in resolving disputes in today’s worldbecause ethics and philosophy are simply subjective opinions of individuals and thatconsensus is thus difficult if not impossible in ethics. But in fact the same can be saidabout science as was indicated in the accusations above where one group accusesanother of not being scientific.

I think that it is also important that many of the statements listed have to do with food. Food habits are historically not based on objective reasoning, and there may be no reasonthat one should be asked to be scientific in selecting their food or how their food isproduced. People do not eat what science considers the most healthful and never havedone so. Dietary habits are based on religious traditions, individual preferences, etc. Toargue that one should eat a given food --- or food produced in a given manner --- becauseof science is going against a long history of tradition. The freedom to eat what onechooses is a strongly held value. Granted, science-based information should be available,but arguing that a given food should be accepted on the basis of science can sound quitepatronizing to consumers.

-9-

Regarding the lack of consensus about ethics, in fact there is much more agreementamong humans regarding ethics than there is disagreement. For example, we humansalmost universally agree that it is wrong to cause unnecessary pain and suffering to others. This is a value that is basically common to all people. There is strong agreement on thisissue across international borders, languages, cultures, religions, races, sexes, etc. True,we may disagree about what is meant by “unnecessary” pain and suffering. Some groupsmay contend that it is sometimes “necessary” to cause suffering to others in order to bringabout what is considered to be a greater good. Justification of warfare is frequentlyattempted with such an argument. We may even disagree as to whom should be includedwhen we talk about harming “others.” Animal rights activists typically contend that “others”should include all beings capable of feeling pain and suffering. Whereas, there are stillmany persons in the world who contend that “others” do not include persons of other ethicgroups, religions, races, etc. Fetuses are also not believed to be persons by some andtherefore feel it is not wrong to terminate them; whereas, others disagree. But regardless,the disagreement is not about values. The disagreement is about beliefs. All agree on thevalues involved --- it is wrong to cause undue pain or harm to others. The disagreement isabout what is meant by unnecessary and who is deserving of consideration. Too often theemphasis in discussions about ethics becomes focused on topics where there isdisagreement and the high level of agreement among humans is not recognized (Rachels,1993).

We all need ethics. In fact, we all employ ethics in our daily lives and our professionalactivities --- even we scientists. To conduct science involves value judgement. The simpleact of deciding which topic to research involves a value judgement and therefore has to dowith ethics. When persons advocate that only science should be employed in addressingcontemporary issues they give up the moral high ground to the groups they view as theiropponents. The advocates for the environment, food safety, moral vegetarianism, etc.readily accept both moral and scientific grounds for their position. They quite readilyaccept that “doing the right thing” is important. I would suggest that having pork producers--- and animal scientists --- simply state that they as individuals care about the quality of lifethat animals have is a step in the right direction toward building a pork industry that isethically based. Additionally, if they can state they hold such a position because they feel itis the right thing to do, then I believe an even greater step will have been made. And froma pragmatic viewpoint, such statements would do much to gain even greater public supportfor the pork industry.

Ultimately, science cannot answer all questions. Science can continue to add newknowledge about nature, and how we treat others should be consistent with what scientificknowledge we have. But science cannot tell us how to answer questions about how weought to treat others. Ethics, not science, is the basis for determining how we ought to treatothers. And others should include humans, other animals and the environment.

Can the swine industry afford to continue to produce cheap pork?

Pork production is typically measured in pounds of meat produced and dollars earned orlost. Both of these end-points are important. The first, meat, is a product that adds to thelives of many persons both nutritionally and in quality of life experienced from eating foodthat is pleasing in taste. Profit is necessary of course in a capitalist economy or else theproduction system is unsustainable. And when considered in total and the current system

-10-

has many pluses --- a major one being that hunger is not typically a problem. The Nobellaureate Amartya Sen wrote, “No democratic society --- with a reasonably free press --- hasever experienced famine.” However, when one thinks of our current pork production intotal, then the impact of pork production is much greater than the bottom line on theaccounting sheet or even the relative lack of hunger.The continuing drive toward greater efficiency in production has led to fewer producers(Figure 1) and larger production units (Figure 2). While we often look to the greater

efficiency of production that comes with this change, we may at the same time overlook theconsiderable negative impact on the swine producers who are no longer in business, somehaving been forced out through bankruptcy. In total, these changes in the scale ofproduction have had dramatic changes in pork production. Hodges (1999) wrote:

“During the 50 years since the end of World War II, farming in theWest has changed from a way of life to a business. Animal producersnow make decisions as business people husbanding their profit, returnon investment and costs. As the benefits of scale are captured,livestock production has intensified. Science serves the farmer lessdirectly. Today, research impacts the farmer mainly through upstreamand downstream businesses, especially the chemical, food-processingand pharmaceutical companies. Many of these businesses merged inthe 1990’s, so that at the end of the 20th century a few multinationalcompanies are enormously powerful players on the world scene.”

The changes in the size of scale of production systems have additionally had an impactwell beyond the dramatic decline in the number of farmers and farm suppliers. Thechanges in the number of farmers have dramatically affected the rural economies and ruraldemographics of America. Today, many small towns have essentially disappeared andgreater numbers of persons have moved into the cities and their expanding suburbansprawl. The changes in scale of pork production units have had a major impact on largesegments of society far beyond the persons who own hogs.

-11-

Americans now spend less than 10 cents of each dollar on food and much of the cost goestoward convenience-types of food. The argument that production practices that arequestionable because of welfare, environment, etc. must continue in order to keep pricescheap loses its validity at some point, especially when Americans are paying much lessthan most persons in the world. Food prices must be reasonable to the consumer andprofitable to the pork producer. But a policy that is based almost exclusively on cheap foodprices can be argued to contribute in a considerable negative manner to the well-being ofproducers (bankruptcy), lowered rural standards of living, lessened animal welfare, anderosion of the environment. I believe that at some point, these costs could become sogreat that one could state that the pork industry --- and other animal food producingindustries --- will not be able to afford to continue to produce “cheap” food.

Is bigger better?

Modern pork and other intensive systems solved a major problem---shortage ofinexpensive meat and other animal products. Meat is now readily available to most allmembers of American society in abundance and at a cheap price. Technology played amajor role in bringing about this change. But with cheap and readily available food, therehave now emerged issues of animal welfare, environmental impact, labor disputes andworker safety, decline in the rural society and economy, etc. Science provided theknowledge for change. Technology facilitated the application of the knowledge. Ademocratic society and a capitalist economy allowed the implementation of change anddistribution of the product to the consumers. But I believe when one considers the trendsindicated in Figures 1 and 2, a critical question can be asked, “Where does the pork

industry --- the current pork producers --- expect the trend to stop?” According to the datafrom Figure 2, just over 2% of the producers (~2,000 units) own approximately 50% of thehogs. Are we to continue to argue for bigger and bigger units? Fewer and fewer

-12-

producers? More pigs per litter? Heavier body weights in younger market hogs? Evencheaper food for American consumers? What is the end point that is being sought byanimal agriculture? Is there not some goal that can be set for these different features ofpork production?

Can “unethical” pork be sustainable?

There is considerable evidence from survey data that intensive confinement of animals isconsidered to be unacceptable by the public (Herzog et at., 2001). One could even saythat systems that do not allow the animal to turn around for most of their lives, as does thegestation stall, is considered by most persons as being unethical. If one definessustainable systems as being those “that last,” then one can ask whether or not systemsthat are deemed unethical can be sustainable.

Sustainability is a topical issue in general. Sustainable agriculture specifically has receivedconsiderable attention in recent years. The term sustainable has a number of definitions.Frequently the term sustainable agriculture is used to mean or imply some alternative tothe current practice. And there is typically some implication that sustainable agriculturehas to do in some manner with what is viewed as natural or environmentally sound. Sustainable agriculture then becomes systems that are small scale or even organic farming--- often with the emphasis solely on plant agriculture. However, if one views the termsustainable as meaning literally “activities that last or continue to exist,” then there very wellmay be parts of current intensive animal agriculture that will prove to be sustainable fordecades if not centuries. For example the environmental impact of a properly managedintensive animal unit is typically much less than is the impact of the same animals housedoutside. Therefore, continuing to house animals in confinement units may likely continuefor some time.

However, what about some of the specific practices commonly employed today to houseanimals intensively? For example will gestation stalls prove to be sustainable? The publicclearly believes that animals should not be confined for long periods such that they cannotturn around. Can gestation stalls be sustainable when a majority of persons come toconsider it unethical to house animals in such a manner? Stated more generally, can asystem that is judged to be unethical in its treatment of animals be sustainable? I believethat ultimately the answer to this question is “No!”

Systems and production practices associated with pork that are not bio-ethically defensible(or consistent with public opinion) will ultimately prove to be unsustainable. It can beargued that this pertains not only to issues related to animal welfare as was just discussedrelative to gestation stalls, but also issues of the environment. Animal production systemsthat are judged to be detrimental or threatening to wildlife, natural resources, or theecosystem as a whole will not be sustainable when viewed by future generations assystems that have lasted.

Additionally, animal production systems that impose disproportionate burdens on groups ofhumans will not be sustainable. Agricultural workers and food processors are toofrequently paid less or experience work conditions that pose considerable risk to theirhealth and well-being. The increasing problem of employment of illegal aliens in somesegments of agriculture causes all segments to be viewed negatively in its treatment of

-13-

workers. Workers in slaughter plants are now processing animals at strikingly rapid ratesand have one of the highest rates of injury of all laborers. When hog market pricesdropped dramatically a few years back, there was an apparent increase in suicide ratesamong swine producers in some regions. The continuing decline in hog producers has hada dramatic impact on the demographics and sociology of our society. There has been acontinuing migration of persons from rural areas to cities, from the central farmland statesto the coastal states. Rural communities and small towns in many farming regions of theUnited States have become shells of what they once were. All these changes are relatedto the increased scale and employment of technology in agriculture. Many people todayare free from the drudgery of stoop labor but the industrialization of agriculture has alsocreated or revealed these new problems. There are ethical costs to humans associatedwith increasing scale in agricultural systems, and at some point the costs may becomesuch that citizens act out causing the current trend to be unsustainable.

What does the public want from pork producers --- what is the bottom line?

A review of survey data of the past 50 years about public attitudes toward animals wasrecently published by the Humane Society of the United States (Herzog et al., 2001). Theconclusion reached in this publication was that there currently is no society-wideconsensus regarding the moral status of animals. However, it was determined that publicopinion has:

I. Shifted toward providing greater protection to animals.2. Dramatically increased its membership in animal protection organizations.3. Agrees (~65%) that, “An animal’s right to live free of suffering should be equally

important to that of a human.”4. Has a favorable view (~65%) of the animal rights movement.

These above stated findings may sound quite negative toward animal agriculture. However, according to Herzog et al. (2001) the survey data of the past 35 to 50 years alsoindicated that:

1. Only ~2% of Americans are “true” vegetarians.2. The majority of persons state that health concerns are the basis for choosing to

avoid certain animal products.3. There is no detectable trend toward increasing vegetarianism (emphasis mine).

Regarding animal agriculture specifically, the authors in the HSUS review article concludedthat members of the public:

1. Believe that the majority of farmers treat their animals humanely.2. Express greater concerns about intensive confinement (gestation stalls, etc.).3. Say they will pay more for products from humane systems.4. Generally believe that meat industries can be relied upon to regulate themselves.5. Overwhelmingly believe that groups such as USDA should be involved in protection

of farm animals.6. Wish to continue animal products in their diets (emphasis mine).

-14-

The results of this survey review says that people, as consumers, wish to continue to eatmeat, but it also says that people, as citizens, wish to ensure that the animals experience areasonable quality of life. The public as a whole seems to be saying that they accepteating products from animals as morally acceptable --- and they trust the producers asacting in good faith. However, the public appears to also be saying that they want someoutside party to provide assurance that animals experience some quality of life. The publicviews USDA as having a role in animal oversight at the farm.

I believe that the Bottom Line is that the public is asking that the life of the pig beseparated from the food product --- pork. Generally, in the public’s attitude toward meat, itseems that there is a trend toward uncoupling the ownership of the animal’s life fromownership of the animal food product. If this speculation is correct, then the public issaying that ownership of the animal as a food product does not extend to giving theanimal’s owner total control over the life experiences of the animal. At first this may soundcompletely impossible, and it is difficult --- but maybe not impossible. I say this becausethis is essentially what the research community has done during the past 20 years. Today,the researcher “owns” the animal from the viewpoint of the animal serving as a researchsubject. However, the care and treatment of the animal are determined by an InstitutionalAnimal Care and Use Committee. Additionally, the recent actions of the fast foodindustries on animal welfare standards and oversight are patterned considerably on themodel of how research animals are governed. The fast food groups could be said to bemoving toward a policy that requires that a third party has input into determining howanimals are treated. In other words they are moving toward uncoupling the ownership ofthe animal as a food product from ownership --- or at least control --- over all of theanimal’s life experiences.

The pork industry still has a chance to take a pro-active stance on ethical issues and actbefore changes are forced upon them, and I believe there are many good reasons fordoing so. First of all, I would argue that it is the right thing to do for the animals. Next,taking a pro-active stance gives the industry the opportunity to determine the time frame forchange. One of the big disadvantages to having change occur through actions such asthat of that recently enacted by the fast-food industry --- or most of the proposed legislationbills for that matter --- is that they call for immediate changes.

In Europe when housing systems are declared illegal, the existing systems are grand-fathered in and then no new systems can be built. The veal crates of Britain were phasedout over a 30-year period. Additionally, I would argue that if the pork producers as a wholethrough their own initiative took the position that they wished to eliminate certain practices,such as gestation stalls, that they would be a very strong position to demand tax-credit orother financial support to make the changes. In short I believe that a defensive strategy indealing with ethical issues is a losing one when the long-term view is considered.

The American public wishes to continue to eat meat and other animal products. However,the public also strongly believes that there should be efforts taken to ensure that theanimals involved experience a reasonable quality of life. The animal food industries andproduction systems that make adjustments in consideration of the public’s concerns willhave a financially healthy future. Acting to do the right thing for animals, the environmentand all persons associated with pork production is also the right thing to do. Ethics in itsmost simple form can be said to be a matter of “doing the right thing.” Socrates said

-15-

something to the effect, “The right thing to do is the thing that has the best reasons fordoing.”

References

Herzog, H., A. Rowan and D. Kossow. 2001. Social Attitudes and Animals. In: The Stateof Animals: 2001. Ed: D.J. Salem and A.N. Rowan. Humane Society Press, Washington,DC. pp. 55-69.

Hodges, John. 1999. Why Livestock, Ethics and Quality of Life? In: Livestock, Ethics andQuality of Life. Ed: J. Hodges and I.K. Han. CABI Publishing, New York, pp. 1-26.

Rachels, James. 1993. The Elements of Moral Philosophy. McGraw Hill, Inc., New York. p.216.Sen, A., 1993. The Economics of Life and Death, Scientific American, May, 18-25.

-16-

-17-

Availability of Resources, Models, and Training Programs

Cynthia P. Smith, M.S., Technical Information SpecialistUnited States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, National

Agricultural Library, Animal Welfare Information Center10301 Baltimore Avenue Beltsville, MD 20705

Abstract: Information regarding the well-being of swine is often presented to producers asa “hot topic”. Developing legislative issues will continue to keep swine housing and well-being at the forefront. However, interest in swine housing and well-being is not new. In theUnited States studies have been conducted on sow housing, problems associated withweaning, mixing pigs, handling, and environmental enrichment, for over twenty years. Aswith all scientific research as information is gained more questions remain to be answered. Therefore the task of providing the producer with information to make farm managementdecisions is not easy but a baseline of data does exist. During the following presentationinformation resources related to swine well-being, care, and housing, that are accessibleusing a personal computer, the internet, and the services of a local public library will beexplored.

-18-

-19-

Figure 1. The basis of the production system and the roles of themanager and stockpeople.

Overview of the Evaluation of Stockmanship

Professor Peter English, University of Aberdeen, MacRobert Building, 581 King Street,

Aberdeen, AB24 5UA, UK

Swine ‘Well-Being’ is a focal point of this Symposium. The well-being of the pig isdependent on the soundness of its own genetic constitution and the quality of the‘environment’ or system provided. Management and stockmanship are very importantcomponents of the overall production system. My brief in this paper is to deal with thestockmanship component.

The production system and the stockmanship component.

The system in its simplest form comprises the physical and human components as shownin Figure 1.

Thus, the human components include the Management along with the Operative andEmpathetic components of stockmanship as proposed by Seabrook (1984). ‘Management’is responsible for synthesising and maintaining the ‘husbandry’ or production system andfor hiring and managing staff. Thereafter, the stockpeople, through their operative andempathetic influences, are responsible, through the specified management guidelines, andtheir own initiatives, for providing for the needs and ensuring the well-being of the pigs intheir care. When farms were small, the manager and stockperson was one and the sameindividual.

-20-

Opinions on the importance of the stockmanship component

When evaluating the impact of stockmanship on many of the desirable objectives incommercial pig production, the alternative models in Figure 2 of a pig production systemcreated by management can be compared. Decisions can then be made, on the basis ofpersonal experience, which is the more appropriate model.

Figure 2. Major controlling influences within the pig system on pig health, well-being, performance, product quality, efficiency and profitability

The author favours Model 2 because the stockpeople, as well as their direct influence onthe pig through their man-animal empathy, handling and general care (English andEdwards, 1999), also have a very influential role on how effectively the pigs of varyinggenotype are provided with their specific needs in terms of feed, disease control measures,climate, housing, general care and the opportunity to socialise appropriately with theirfellows.

Other opinions on the importance of stockmanship include the following:

The UK Farm Animal Welfare Council (1983). Good stockmanship is the key to animalwelfare. Stockmanship is the key factor because, no matter how otherwise acceptable asystem may be in principle, without competent, diligent stockmanship, the welfare of theanimals cannot be adequately catered for.

‘A good stockman is worth his weight in gold’. An oft quoted statement by experiencedlivestock farmers.

Professor H. W. Mumford, Professor of Animal Husbandry, University of Illinois(1917). A Tribute to the Stockperson. He may be polished, or a diamond in the rough - butalways a gem.

-21-

Article continues on next page.

Professor Stan Curtis. Excellent animal husbandry is the sine qua non of successfulanimal production.

Scientific evidence on the importance of stockmanship

The studies of Seabrook (1974, 1984) with dairy cows, Hemsworth et al. (1981, 1986) andRavel et al. (1996, 1998) with pigs have demonstrated significant influences of thestockperson and stockmanship characteristics on animal performance and indices ofwelfare.

Seabrook compared many single man dairy herds under the same management, wheregenotypes, buildings, nutrition and all other inputs were the same in the various herds,apart from that of the individual stockman, and found major differences in milk productionper cow which was entirely attributable to the stockman (See Figure 3).

Figure 3. Milk production in Rex Patterson’s single-man dairy herds (Seabrook,1984).

-22-

Hemsworth and his associates simulated caring and uncaring stockmanship by applyingpleasant (positive) and unpleasant (negative) treatments and found major differences ingrowth and reproductive performance of pigs as well as indices of animal welfare (SeeTable 1).

Table 1. Effects of handling treatments on the level of fear of humans andperformance of pigs.

The quality of stockmanship currently and recruitment challenges

With the improved understanding of the overall needs of our pigs it should be easier tomeet these needs through ensuring appropriate systems and standards of stockmanship. What are the trends in availability and quality of stockpeople in the USA? Are pigstockmanship jobs in demand so that objective selection procedures can ensurerecruitment of competent or potentially competent employees from a large number ofapplicants? What about job turnover? Reports indicate that job turn-over is high, whichsuggests instability in the workforce and a lack of job satisfaction. In many Europeancountries it is becoming increasingly more difficult to recruit good stockpeople. In UK thetraditional production line of new stockpeople (sons/daughters of stockpeople and familyfarmers) is disintegrating as these traditional sources seek and gain employment outwiththe farm livestock industries. In addition, as pig enterprises previously serviced entirely byfamily labour, now increase in size, the challenge has to be addressed of how to manageand motivate teams of employees, an increasing number now coming from non-farmbackgrounds with no previous experience of working with pigs. A paper which I presentedat an Iowa State University Conference on Swine Breeding Herd Management in 1995 was

-23-

entitled ‘Stockmanship: The ‘Achilles Heel’ of the Swine Industry’. There appeared then tobe some agreement with this assertion and perhaps the situation has not improved a greatdeal since.

The comparative lack of relevant research and development studies onstockmanship.

Relative to the vast amount of research carried out over many decades on all othercomponents (e.g. nutrition, genetics, health care, climatic factors) which affect the well-being, health and performance of the pig, very little research has been carried out onstockmanship with a view to increasing understanding on how to improve this mostimportant aspect. The most probable reason for this serious anomaly is that stockmanshiphas had no champion to promote its importance and to sponsor relevant R and D work. The Feed Companies, Breeding Companies and Drug Companies have championed andsponsored research work on nutrition, genetics and disease control respectively whilestockmanship understanding and enhancement has lacked such a champion and sponsor. Thus, an ‘evaluation of stockmanship’ and ideas on how to improve it has had to comefrom practical experience combined with the relatively small amount of relevant researchdata available. In addition, relevant information from other industries is helpful in relation tostaff management and their motivation.

The qualities of good stockpeople.

Attempts have been made to list the desirable qualities of good stockpeople based largelyon practical experience, for example, English et al. (1992):

1. A sound basic knowledge of the animals and their requirements.2. A basic attachment for, and patience with, the stock.3. The ability and willingness to communicate and develop a good relationship with the

stock (empathy).4. Careful and effective animal handling ability.5. Ability to recognise all individual animals and to remember their particular

eccentricities.6. An understanding of normal behavioural characteristics of the stock and a keen

sensitivity for recognising the slightest departure from normal behaviour of individualanimals (perceptual skills).

7. An ability to organise the working time well and having sufficient time to pay attentionto detail.

8. Having a keen appreciation of priorities with a ready willingness to be side-trackedfrom routine duties as pressing needs arise to attend to individual animals in mostneed of attention.

9. Dedication to the task of caring.

The basic desire is to make each animal as comfortable and contented as possible.

-24-

Good stockmanship is always enhanced further by additional experience. These qualitiescan be summarised as follows:

1. Interested in animals2. A liking for animals3. Knowledgeable about requirements4. Highly skilled (technical skills)5. Good Perceptual skills (observation)6. Patience7. Good attitude — behaviour towards animals8. Judgement9. Good work ethic10. Adequate time to pay attention to detail11. Experience.

While some will have different opinions on the specific qualities of good stockpeople, thereis probably broad agreement that the characteristics listed above are fairly close to theoverall credentials of excellent stockpeople.

Such general agreement helps to confirm what we already know --- that good stockpeopleare very special people in terms of the extensive knowledge which they require and thewide range of skills and personal qualities which they must possess because the nature oftheir job is complex and their responsibilities are considerable.

The complex job and responsibilities of stockpeople.

People who have been brought up with livestock have experienced a very long‘apprenticeship’ from their early childhood years. They tend to take their knowledge, skillsand dedication to animal care for granted. As a result, they tend to underestimate thechallenge facing new recruits to the stockmanship ‘profession’. Our aspirations are thatnew recruits become well endowed quickly with the following abilities, skills and dedication:

1. Understanding the wide range of needs of their animals2. Providing for these needs3. Technical, handling and caring skills (wide range)4. Perceptual skills (sight, hearing, smell, touch)5. Caring

A. Early detection of problemsB. Diagnosis of causeC. Working out a remedyD. Applying remedyE. Monitoring the outcome

6. Supervision and Care responsibilitiesA. 24 hours per dayB. 7 days per weekC. 365 days per year.

When we analyse the job of the stockperson we come to realise the complex anddemanding nature of their ‘profession’. Good stockpeople are very special people — theyare ‘professionals’.

-25-

Any job which is complex and demanding needs recruits with good potential combined withrelevant regular and progressive educational, training and motivational initiatives to convertthe ‘potential’ into the desired end product of high quality stockmanship.

Improving stockmanship

At the outset of our studies on stockmanship at the University of Aberdeen we establishedthe Mill Wheel Hypothesis (English et al.,1992), see Figure 4.

Figure 4. Improving the quality of stockmanship --- the ‘Mill Wheel’ hypothesis(English & McPherson, 1995)

The initial concept was that by improving our understanding of each of the Mill Wheelcomponents, this would provide awareness or the ‘fuel’ to increase the efficiency of theoperation of the mill wheel (i.e., the process of enhancing the quality of stockmanship). Aswell as monitoring the outcomes of the studies of other researchers, our own initiativeshave included the development of improved training packages, educational/trainingapproaches and motivational methods. While there is a need for research to improve ourunderstanding of training and stockmanship, we feel that we now have sufficientawareness and experience to provide the basis of a soundeducational/training/motivational package to enhance the quality of stockmanship. Largecompanies operating their own staff development schemes have probably reached thesame conclusion.

-26-

On-farm Training --- Purpose-built to needs

An on-farm training approach was adopted from the outset in our work so that the trainingcould be purpose-built to the specific needs of the farm and the staff (English et al., 1998a;1998b). It involved the entire working team --- owner, managers and stockpeople. Thenumber of staff attending each course varied from 4 to 20. The timing of the training wasselected to suit the farm staff, the least busy day and time of the week being selected. Before a series of Training Courses, the pig enterprise was inspected by the trainers alongwith the owner and/or the manager, to see the stockpeople at their work and to assess thestrengths and weaknesses of the system and the specific problem areas and challengeswhich should be a particular focus for education, training and discussion within the traininggroup.

The emphasis in the training was on husbandry principles and practices (using slides andvideo training materials) and covered the needs of the pigs and how best to meet theseneeds. Slides and video training materials were supplemented with relevant exercises (e.g., on piglet fostering strategies) and simple knowledge/awareness tests. There was alsoemphasis on increasing understanding of pig behaviour and using behaviour as indices ofwell-being so that problems are detected and resolved earlier. Duration of the TrainingCourses on (1) Farrowing and Piglet Rearing (2) Breeding and Pregnancy (including giltmanagement), (3) Weaner Management and (4) Management of finishing pigs andimproving carcass/meat quality, each lasted approximately 2 hours.

The stockpeople proved to be very dedicated and interested students. They accorded highscores to the training materials and training approaches and achieved significantimprovements in knowledge in the post-course relative to the pre-course tests. Theyvalued these tests and sought such training on a regular, progressive basis. They foundthe training motivational and it enhanced their job satisfaction. It could be said that theyhad a thirst for learning, for understanding their animals better and how to meet their needsmore effectively. The training materials and approach appeared to meet the needs of allmembers of the training group --- from managers to experienced stockpeople to newrecruits.

Impacts of the Training

The training was evaluated by the stockpeople and managers in various ways including acomparison of pre-course versus post-course test results and via Course Evaluations. However, the main ‘proof of the pudding’ was the impact, if any, on pig herd performance. To this end, herd performance records were compared in the year before and the yearafter the training and a summary of such comparisons are presented in Table 2. Farmsselected for this comparison were those with no staff or system changes over the period sothat any changes in pig performance were most likely to be attributable to theenhancement of the competence/motivation of the staff.

-27-

Table 3. Details of Year Before versus Year After comparisons for Herds 3 and 7

Table 2. Comparison of herd results in Year 1 (before) relative to Year 2 (after thetraining).

In Herd 1, in addition to the increase in weaner output, reductions were also achieved inRearing Herd (40%) and Finishing Herd (20%) mortality as well as improvements in growthrate in the Rearing (+13%) and Finishing Herds (+25%). The major improvementsachieved in Herd 1 during the rearing and finishing stages are indicative of the existence ofserious problems before the training which the training did much to alleviate.

More specific details of Year Before versus Year After comparisons for Herds 3 and 7 aresummarised in Table 3. The training emphasis in Herd 3 was on reducing piglet mortality,

-28-

no training being provided on breeding management and the growing --- finishing stages.What about the relative likelihood of achieving improvements through relevant training inherds with either high or low productivity before the training? The key factor in terms oflikelihood of a good response to training appeared to be the belief of the manager thatrelevant training could have a useful impact as well as the receptivity of the staff to training. It is likely that given the opportunity and challenge, a high proportion of staff will respond toefficient training. Most have a basic desire to succeed in their job and the better theunderstanding they have of their pigs and their needs, the more interesting their jobbecomes and the more motivated and determined they are to achieve both Company andself imposed objectives. It is interesting that Hemsworth et al., (1994) in Australia set outto improve the attitude and behaviour of pig stockpeople towards their pigs through trainingand related initiatives. Responses obtained included reduced levels of fear in the pigs aswell as enhanced reproductive performance (+7.2% in births per sow per year). This levelof improvement was within the range obtained in our own work (See Table 2). TheTraining initiatives used in the Australian work also appeared to enhance job satisfactionand to reduce job turnover rate.

Enhancement of pig well-being through improving stockmanship.

It can be claimed that the attainment of the pig performance improvements summarised inTables 2 and 3 were achieved because of improvements in pig well-being. An obviousindex of improved pig well-being or welfare is enhancement of survival of piglets and olderpigs, achieved through meeting the pigs needs more effectively, including the earlierdiagnosis and remedying of problems. The basis of the educational and training initiativeswas in enhancing awareness of the basic needs of the pigs, on how best to provide forthese needs, on behavioural indices of well-being, on the ability to detect problems earlierand rectify them more promptly and effectively, and the importance of stockperson-animalrelationships to the animal, its well-being and performance. Further emphasis was onenhancing motivation and job satisfaction, and the stimulation to improve pig care throughbetter understanding, attention to detail and good husbandry in general.

Are current staff in pig enterprises stockpeople or labourers? Is the staffcomplement classified as the ‘Labour Force’ or the ‘Pig Care Team’?

One must be concerned about a situation in which there is a high turnover of staff in pigproduction enterprises. This indicates a lack of job satisfaction which is likely to haveadverse effects on both the well-being of the pigs and the business. The adequacy of staffrecruitment, educational, training and motivational initiatives must be examined with a viewto their improvement. Are the mechanisms in place to convert new recruits with goodpotential into good stockpeople?

An alternative strategy is to make the production system so fail-safe and foolproof that onlybasic labourers are required who merely have to adhere to prescribed ‘recipes’ or clearlywritten procedures to do their job. What proportion of employees are happy to work in thisway? Do they contribute significantly to the high labour turnover rate on some pigenterprises? Could some of these labourers be converted into better and more contentedstockpeople by understanding the needs of their pigs better and being better able toprovide for these needs? Would this help to reduce labour turnover and help to createmore stable and effective teams of stockpeople within pig enterprises? We must

-29-

remember that high labour turnover can be a ‘disruptive, costly business’ in the pigenterprise. I would appreciate responses to some of the above questions from pigenterprise managers.

My own experiences in UK and other European countries with about 500 stockpeople ofwidely varying backgrounds and experience have been positive. In general terms, theyhave had a great thirst for learning, for understanding the needs of their pigs better and ofhow to meet their needs more effectively, and have responded well to oureducational/training/motivational initiatives.

Improved stockmanship helps to make more efficient use of expensive resources.

In our own studies, our ‘Year Before’ versus ‘Year After’ comparisons have been confinedto those enterprises where there have been no staff or system changes over the periodand no increase in capital investments. The improvements achieved in Year 2 have beenachieved by enabling the staff through enhanced understanding, application of skills,dedication to caring and fine tuning of priorities to make more efficient use of their basicresources---the genotypes, diets, feeding systems, disease control measures, buildingsand climatic control facilities. The educational/training and motivational initiatives havehelped the stockpeople to make more efficient use of these expensive resources (SeeFigure 5).

Figure 5. The pivotal role of enhanced stockmanship in making more efficient use ofexpensive resources by improving pig well-being, health and performance, efficiencyand profitability indices.

Model 2

-30-

Evaluation and improvement of stockmanship to enhance the well-being of the pigand the business.

Relative to other influential factors in the pig enterprise, very little research has beencarried out to provide a basis for determining the components of stockmanship, evaluatingthese and thereafter improving this very important component of pig production systems. However, through practical experience and the limited research and development workwhich has been carried out, we now have a sound basis for enhancing stockmanshipthrough educational, training and motivational initiatives. The recent development of highquality comprehensive Training Packages (e. g., English et al., 2000) provide furthersupport to educational/training initiatives in pig production enterprises. However, there is acontinuing need to pursue appropriate research and development studies and the resultsof these will help to fine tune and improve existing training/motivational initiatives to furtherenhance stockmanship and, in turn, the well-being of both our pigs and the pig business.

References

English, P.R., Burgess 6, Segundo R and Dunne JH (1992). Stockmanship: improving thecare of the pig and other livestock. Farming Press. Ipswich, Suffolk, England. 190 pages.

English, P.R. and McPherson, 0. (1995). Stockmanship: The ‘Achilles Heel’ of the pigindustry and the role of training, education and motivational procedures in enhancing pigcare and performance. Proceedings Iowa State University Conference on ‘Swine BreedingHerd Management’. Des Moines, Iowa, USA. September 1995.

English, P.R., McPherson, 0., Deligeorgis, 5.6., Vidal, J.M., Tarocco, C., Bertaccini, F. andSterten, H. (1998a). Evaluation of training, certification and career development strategiesfor livestock industry workers in Scotland, Greece, Spain, Italy and Norway. In: FarmAnimal Welfare — Who writes the rules? Occasional Publication No. 23 — British Societyof Animal Science 1999. (Eds. A.J.F. Russel, C.A. Morgan, C.J. Savory, M.C. Appelby andT.L.J. Lawrence) 144 - 149.

English, P.R., McPherson, 0., Deligeorgis, S.G., Vidal, J.M., Tarocco, C., Bertaccini, F. andSterten, H. (1998b). Evaluation of the effects of training methodologies, motivationalinfluences and staff and enterprise development initiatives for livestock industry workers inScotland, Greece, Spain, Italy and Norway on livestock performance and indices of animalwelfare. In: Farm Animal Welfare Who writes the rules? Occasional Publication No. 23 — British Society of Animal Science 1999. (Eds. A.J.F. Russel, C.A. Morgan, C.J. Savory,M.C. Appelby and T.L.J. Lawrence) 137 - 143.

English, P.R. and Edwards, S.A. (1999). Animal Welfare. Chapter 71 in Diseases ofSwine. 8th Edition (Eds. Straw, BE, D’Allaire, S. Mengeling, WL and Taylor, DJ. Iowa StateUniversity Press. Ames, Iowa, USA. 1067-1076.

English, P.R. and McPherson, 0. (2000). Enhancing animal welfare through the education,training and motivation of stockpeople. Invited Paper presented to the Farm QualityAssurance Group, UK Farm Animal Welfare Council. Edinburgh. 19 Pages.

English, P.R., Carr, J., Gill, B.P., Sheldon, M., Brent, 6., Grant, S., McPherson, 0. and

-31-

Edwards, S.A. (2000). An Interactive Multi-Media Training Package for Pig Stockpeople.University of Aberdeen and Meat and Livestock Commission, UK.

Hemsworth, P.H., Bamett, J.L. and Hansen C. (1981). The influence of handling byhumans on the behaviour, growth and corticosteroids in the juvenile female pig. Hormonesand Behaviour 15, 396-403.

Hemsworth, P.H., Barnett, J.L. and Hansen, C. (1986). The influence of handling byhumans on the behaviour, reproduction and corticosteroids of male and female pigs.Applied Animal Behavioural Science 15: 303-314.

Ravel A, D’Allaire S and Bigras-Poulin M (1996). Survey of management and housing infarrowing quarters among independent and integrated swine farms in Québec. Can. J. VetRes. 60, 21-28.

Ravel A. D’Allaire S and Bigras-Poulin M (1998). Influence of management, housing andpersonality of the stockperson on independent and integrated swine farms in Quebec.Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research.

Seabrook, M. (1974). A study of some elements of the cowman’s skills as influencing themilk yield of dairy cows. PhD Thesis, University of Reading, England.

Seabrook M.F. (1984). The psychological interaction between the stockman and hisanimals and its influence on performance of pigs and dairy cows. Veterinary Record 115:84-87.

-32-

-33-

Practical Sow Housing System Design: Opportunities and AlternativesIntroduction

Larry R. MillerNational Program Leader, Animal Sciences

USDA/CSREES

I welcome you to the session that addresses various alternative swine housing systems inthe United States. The speakers will cover stall systems, pen systems, extensive/pasturesystems, and large group systems that may include comparisons among these systems. Presentations will emphasize the science that supports the animal well-being and practicalaspects of each system including the economic efficiencies. The advantages anddisadvantages of each system will be discussed to help producers compare options thatare available and applicable to their production situation.

The Pork Academy provides a valuable format for producers and others interested in swinehousing systems to objectively evaluate alternative housing systems. This symposium wasmade possible by the allocation of funds from Congress through the USDA Secretary’soffice to the Research, Education and Economics Under Secretary to address animal well-being issues. Part of this allocation was made available to CSREES to provide leadershipin the development of this symposium and other educational programs for the swinesystem and outreach support to complement related USDA, Agricultural Research Serviceprograms.

The organizing committee is composed of representatives from farm, commodity,university, and professional organizations that have a commitment to serving the swineindustry, and from persons serving niche sectors of the industry as hands-on well-beingadvocates, and protection group representatives. These same people will cooperate tocoordinate development of the educational and training programs that build on thissymposium. You will be sent a copy of the proceedings after the symposium. Videotapesand audiotapes of the symposium will be available through Purdue University andcommodity and other organizations for only a handling fee.

You were provided an evaluation form as part of your registration packet. It is important toknow your opinion of the topics and speakers for all sections of the symposium. Thesecomments will help provide direction for the balance of our work on this very importantproject.

Questions will be written on index cards or other paper. Questions will be taken to theModerator, who will read the question and ask speakers to respond. Audience memberinteractions with speakers will take place after the Question and Answer period. If timeallows, the Moderator may chose to allow a question using this same procedure. Speakersare reminded to stay on time due to the tight schedule.

We have an outstanding panel of speakers, who have many years of experience in theirfield of expertise. They have been instructed to challenge you and to provide you a chanceto see well-being issues in a realistic and perhaps different light. We hope you find thesymposium beneficial. Thank you for your participation and interest in practical sowhousing and design.

-34-

-35-

The Crate

John McGlonePork Industry InstituteTexas Tech UniversityLubbock, Texas 79409

The gestation crate (also called the stall) is the most common system for housing sows inthe USA today. It is arguably the most common system around the world in developedcountries. A typical gestation crate measures two feet wide and seven feet long. Sowscan stand up, lie down, but sows can not turn around or completely socially interact withother sows while in a crate. The crate prevents inter-sow aggression and extremesubmissive/thin sows and the crate allows for the individual control of feed intake (andtherefore a good body condition can be maintained). Limited social interaction is possiblewith the crate between neighboring sows.

Gestation crate were first introduced in the USA in the 1960's and they first appeared in thepopular agricultural press in 1969 but this system was probably on farms starting around1964. Gestation crates or individual stalls were used in Europe for more than 200 years. Today, the majority of USA sows are kept in crates for all of gestation and lactation (apartfrom walks between gestation and lactation crates).

Sows in crates show stereotyped and non-stereotyped oral/nasal/facial (ONF) behaviorsfor a variable amount of their awake time. ONF behaviors are a cause for concern forsome scientists and consumers. Sows in gestation crates do not show physiological signsof stress. Reproductive rates are very good for sows in crates. For studies that comparedproductivity of sows in crates and a variety of alternative systems (group pens indoors oroutdoors), the majority of studies report no difference between sows in crates and othersystems. In spite of the scientific evidence which does not report physiological orproductive problems with the crate, some groups claim based on behavior data or ethicalor other arguments that the crate is not an acceptable system. Alternative systems areavailable, but they typically require more floor space. Economic forces favor the gestationcrate at this time. If market forces result in banning the gestation crate, then the spacerequired to keep sows (and the cost) will rise.

-36-

-37-

Group housing of sows in small pens:Advantages, disadvantages and recent research

E. A. PajorAssistant Professor,

Animal Welfare and BehaviorDepartment of Animal Sciences, Purdue University

West Lafayette, IN

Introduction

Public perceptions, particularly misconceptions, of animal husbandry practices, cannegatively impact the swine industry. Increased awareness of modern agriculturalpractices has raised concerns over their impact on food safety, the environment, andanimal welfare. Recent activities by retailers, such as fast food restaurants andsupermarket chains, as well as animal rights organizations, have increased pressure onvarious sectors of the agricultural industry to address controversial practices that mayaffect food safety, the environment, and animal welfare.

Presently, one of the most controversial issues of conventional pig production is theindividual housing of gestating sows. In Europe, 70% of gestating sows are individuallyhoused (Hendricks et al., 1998). In Australia and New Zealand, 63 and 50% of sows arehoused individually (Patterson et al., 1997; Gregory and Devine, 1999). In the USA,Barnett et al. (2001) estimated that 60-70% of sows are housed in stalls throughoutgestation.

Although conventional gestation stalls allow for easy management, and individual feeding,they are perceived by the public to negatively impact sow welfare. In gestation stalls, sowsare prevented from performing many of the behavior patterns that pigs would perform inmore natural or less restricted conditions resulting in a negative impact on sow welfare.

The issue of sow housing and other welfare issues have been investigated by animalwelfare scientists for many years (see SVC 1997; and, Barnett et al., 2001 for excellentreviews). Concerns over animal welfare combined with European based scientific datahave led to gestation stalls being phased out in several European countries, and from 2013the use of stalls will be restricted throughout the European Union. This action hasincreased pressure on the US swine industry and animal scientists to consider theadvantages and disadvantages of the alternatives to gestation stalls.

Advantages of group housing

There are clear advantages for animal welfare when sows are housed in groups (SVC,1997). Housing sows in groups provides sows with:

1. more room to move and exercise2. more control over their environment3. more opportunity for normal social interactions.

Sows in groups are reported to have improved cardiovascular fitness (Marchant et al.,1997), improved muscle weight and bone strength (Marchant and Broom, 1996),decreased morbidity (Tillon and Madec, 1984) and less abnormal behavior (Broom 1983)

-38-

Disadvantages of group housing

Although there are clear animal welfare benefits to group housing, disadvantages also exist(SVC, 1997). These include:

1. Fighting2. Injury3. Embryo loss in extreme cases of fighting or as a result of mixing during implantation4. Detection of injuries and poor health may be more difficult5. Better stockmanship required.

Characteristics of small pens for group housing

1. Typically 4-12 animals per pen2. Individual feeding stalls are highly recommended3. Provision of laying area with solid floor is desirable4. Slatted floors should be provided for the dunging area5. Ability to lock animals that are being bullied within feeding stall allows for easy

management of a difficult situation6. Feeding stalls which sows can close or open by entering and exiting, minimize the

harassment, displacement, and vulva biting while providing the sow with the option ofspending time in isolation or with the group

Advantages of small pens

1. Simultaneous individual feeding2. Ease of conversion from existing gestation stall facilities3. Ease of management compared to large groups4. Groups are relatively stable compared to large dynamic groups which should minimize

sow aggression

Sow Aggression

Group housing is not without animal welfare concerns and sow aggression leading to injuryis particularly problematic. Although group housing permits freedom of movement andincreased social contact, the initial group formation often results in aggression betweensows (Edwards, 1982). Aggression is a natural behavior that is required to establish adominance hierarchy, but may result in serious injuries (Lynch et al., 1984).

In addition to mixing, social stress leading to aggression can occur when stable groups arealtered. This occurs commonly in the swine industry, when non-pregnant sows areremoved from the group. The aggression that occurs during the initial mixing or whengroup composition is altered can result in decreased production, physical injury (which maylead to infection and food safety concerns), and a clear negative impact on an animal’swelfare. Aggression can also impact the welfare of subordinate individuals within the groupover the longer term, if system design is inadequate and animals are not able to isolatethemselves.

The issue of sow aggression highlights one of the main advantages of small groups. Ingeneral, small groups can be relatively stable in comparison with larger groups composed

-39-

Article continued on next page

of sows at various stages of gestation. These large, dynamic, groups present producerswith significant challenges with regards to sow aggression associated with the formation ofstable social relationships.

Sow aggression is not limited to group housing. Sows kept in stalls often show aggressivebehavior towards their neighbors (Barnett et al., 1987). In fact the aggression betweenstalled sows has been reported to escalate to a high level more often than in group-housedanimals (Broom et at., 1995). Such aggressive interactions in confined sows will notnormally result in injury but do involve fear and frustration which can impact sowproductivity and welfare.

Behavior during farrowing

A significant amount of the discussion over gestation housing focuses on the welfare of thesow specifically during gestation. However, gestation housing can clearly effect thebehavior and welfare of sows during farrowing and lactation. Improved bone strength andmuscle tone as a result of group housing can be beneficial to sows during farrowing. However, gilts accustomed to freedom of movement during gestation, are reported to findfarrowing crates to be more stressful than sows housed in stalls during gestation(Lawrence et al., 1994). Furthermore, gilts that experience close confinement for the firsttime when moved to farrowing crates are more stressed than gilts housed in crates duringgestation (Beattie et al., 1995; Harris and Gonyou, 1998; Boyle et al, 2000). In contrast toMarchant and Broom (1993), Boyle (2002) reported that sows loose housed duringgestation changed postures more during parturition and early lactation suggesting anegative effect on sow welfare in farrowing crates. Increased movement during parturitionincreases the probability of piglets being crushed (Thodberg et al., 1999) and has beenassociated with aggression towards piglets (Harris et al., 2001). In fact, increasedsavaging of piglets has been reported for sows housed in groups during gestationcompared to stalls (Beattie et al., 1995).

Recent Research

Few published North American studies on the effects of gestation housing exist, andevaluation is complicated by the lack of direct comparisons under controlled conditions.

Our recent research compared gilts housed for one parity in conventional stalls or smallgroups of four. All conditions, except for housing type, were identical for the two systems.

-40-

Figure 2. Skin health scores (head and body) for group and stall-housedguts on d 91 after breeding.

Figure 1. Weights on d 7 to d 91 after breeding for pregnant gilts housed in stallsand groups.

There was no overall effect of housing on the amount of weight that gilts gained duringgestation, although sows in groups gained on average 20% more weight during pregnancy(Fig. 1). There were no differences in backfat measurement between gilts housed in stallsand those housed in groups on any of the four measurement days

There was no significant difference in skin health between gilts allocated to groups andstalls at the time of transfer to gestation. From d 21 after breeding (2 wk after entry togestation housing) to d 91 after breeding, body skin health was consistently poorer ingroup-housed than stall-housed gifts. Fig. 2 shows differences between skin health scoresfor the six body regions on d 91.

-41-

Figure 3. Percentage of time spent performing repetitive oral/nasal/facial behaviors(stereotypies) during a 2 hour period after consuming feed, by gilts housed ingroups of four and gestation stalls.

We also examined a number of physiological measures (Sorrells et al., 2001). There wereno significant differences in hematocrit, lymphocyte, or AGP concentrations (Table 1).

Table 1. Blood parameters for guts housed in groups of 4 or individual stalls(Sorrells et al., 2001).

-42-

Group housed and stall housed sows did differ significantly in the occurrence of stereotypicbehavior, with sows in stalls performing more stereotypies than sows in groups (Figure 3).

These results indicate no difference in production between gilts housed during their firstpregnancy in stalls or small groups. Group-housed females had more scratches, cuts andwounds on their head, face and body than did those housed in stalls. Although some ofthese lesions were a result of aggression between group members, injuries may also havebeen caused by individuals being stepped on, or contact with sharp pen fittings. Theseaccidental wounds may also have contributed to the higher lesion scores for group-housedfemales’ feet and legs. While higher feet and leg lesion scores did translate into higheraverage lameness scores for grouped females, this difference was not significant.

We found no differences in production, reproductive performance or behavioral timebudget, although group-housed gilts had poorer skin health and higher lameness scores atthe end of gestation but performed fewer stereotypies (Harris et al., 2002).

Future Research

Although substantial research on sow housing has been done, there are numerous issuesthat still need to be addressed. For example, it is clear that different genetic lines responddifferently to various environments and stressors (Pajor et al., 2000; Torrey et al., 2000). Itis probable that different genetic lines of swine will vary in their performance in differenttypes of housing systems. Despite the importance of different genetic lines to the swineindustry, research in this area is seriously lacking. Research on sow aggression, or socialdevelopment is required. Initially, this needs to be done at a fundamental level followed byapplied research. This will ensure that new management practices or housing systems arebased on scientific evidence and a thorough understanding of the issue. Finally, researchand education in the area of human-animal interaction and stockmanship is required. Interactions between stockpeople and their animals can limit the productivity and welfare oflivestock (Hemsworth and Coleman, 1998). For example, studies in pigs indicate that highfear of humans through a chronic stress response, can limit growth and reproduction(Hemsworth and Coleman, 1994). Intervention studies in the pig industry havedemonstrated that educational material targeting the attitude and behaviors of thestockpeople can have a direct effect on animal fear and productivity. Additional researchdevelopment and implementation of these training programs is needed.

Much of the previous research has taken the form of comparing one housing system withanother. Many studies comparing housing systems are difficult to interpret since they failto use adequate scientific controls and/or a multi-disciplinary approach to investigating theimpact on animal welfare. Although there is some value in continuing this approach,perhaps most notably in the area of economics, where comparative data or even themodels to initiate comparative studies between housing systems seem absent, in general,the comparative approach is limited due to the lack of adequate controls. In lieu ofcomparative studies, there needs to be a shift in research priorities towards solving themanagement challenges of alternative housing for gestating sows, be they real orperceived.

References

Barnett, J.L., P.H. Hemsworth, C.G. Winfield, 1987. The effects of design of individualstalls on the social behaviour and physiological responses related to the welfare ofpregnant pigs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 18, 133 - 142.

-43-

Barnett, J.L., P.H. Hemsworth, G.M. Cronin, E.C. Jongman, and G.D. Hutson, 2001. Areview of the welfare issues for sows and piglets in relation to housing. Aust. J. Agric.Res., 52, 1 - 28.

Beattie, V.E., N. Walker, l.A. Sneddon, 1995. Effects of rearing environment and changeof environment on the behavior of gilts. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 46, 57-65.

Boyle, L.A., F.C. Leonard, P.B. Lynch, P. Brophy 2000. Influence of housing systemduring gestation on the behaviour and welfare of gilts in farrowing crates. Anim. Sci. 71,561-570.

Boyle, L.A., F.C. Leonard, P.B. Lynch, P. Brophy 2002. Effect of gestation housing onbehaviour and skin lesions of sows in farrowing crates. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 76, 119-134.

Broom, D.M., 1983. Stereotypies as animal welfare indicators. In “Indicators relevant tofarm animal welfare” (Ed. D. Smidt) pp. 81-87. (Matinus Nijhoff: the Haugue).

Broom, D.M., M.T. Mendl, and A.J. Zanella, 1995. A comparison of the welfare of sows indifferent housing conditions. Anim. Sci. 61:369 - 385.

Edwards, S.A., 1982. Scientific perspectives on loose housing systems for dry sows. Pig.Vet. J. 28, 40-51.

Gregory, N.G., C.D. Devine, 1999. Survey of sow accommodation systems used in NewZealand. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 42, 187-194.

Harris, M.J., H.W. Gonyou 1998. Increasing available space in a farrowing crate does notfacilitate postural changes or maternal responses in gilts. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 59, 285-296.

Harris, M.J., A.D. Sorrells, S.D. Eicher, B.T. Richert and E.A. Pajor, 2001. Effects ofProduction and Health of Two Types of Housing for Pregnant Gilts. Purdue Swine DayPublication.

Harris, M.J., A.D. Sorrells, S.D. Eicher, B.T. Richert and E.A. Pajor, 2002. Effects onProduction, Health and Behavior of Two Types of Housing for Gestating Gilts. AmericanSociety of Animal Science, July 21 - 25, 2002.

Hendricks, H.B.M., B.K. Pedersen, H.M. Vemeer, M. Whitmann, 1998. Pig housingsystems in Europe: current distributions and trends. Pig News and Information 19, 97N-104N.

Hemsworth, P.H., G.J., Coleman, 1998. Human-Livestock Interactions: The Stock personand the Productivity and Welfare of Intensively-Farmed Animals. CAB International, Oxon,UK.

Hemsworth, P.H., G.J., Coleman, J.L. Barnett. 1994. Improving the attitude and behaviourof stockpersons towards pigs and the consequences on the behaviour and reproductiveperformance of commercial pigs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 39, 349-362.

-44-

Lawrence, A.B., J.C. Petherick, K.A. McLean, L.A. Deans, J. Chirnside, A. Vaughn, E.M.C.Terlouw, 1994. The effect of environment on behaviour, plasma cortisol and prolactin inparturient sows. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 39, 3 13-330.

Lynch, P.B., J.F. O’Grady. P.A. Keamey, 1984. Effect of housing system on sowproductivity. Annals of Veterinary Research 15, 181-184.

Marchant, J.N. and D.M. Broom. 1993. The effects of dry sow housing conditions onresponses to farrowing. Anim. Prod. 56, 475-476.

Marchant, J.N., and D.M. Broom. 1996. Effects of dry sow housing conditions on muscleweight and bone strength. Anim. Sci. 62: 105-113.

Marchant, J.N., A.R. Rudd and D.M. Broom. 1997. The effects of housing on heart rate ofgestating sows during specific behaviours. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 55: 67-78.

Pajor, E.A., C. Busse, S. Torrey, M. Shea-Moore, and T. Stewart, 2000. The effect ofselection for lean growth on swine behavior and welfare. Purdue Swine Day Publicationpp1 -3.

Patterson, R., A. Pointon, C. Cargill, 1997. Sow wastage in the Australian pig herd-degree,cost and prevention. Report to the Pig Research and development Corporation, Canberra.

SVC, Scientific Veterinary Committee, Animal Welfare Section, 1997. The Welfare ofIntensively Kept Pigs. European Commission; Report # XXIV/B3/ScVC/0005/1997, 190 p.

Sorrells, A.D., S.D. Eicher, M.J. Harris, E.A. Pajor, B.T. Richert, 2001. Evaluation housingstress in gestating gilts using immunological measures. Purdue Swine Day Publication.

Thodberg, K. K.fI. Jensen, M.S. Herskin, E. Jorgensen, E. 1999. Influence ofenvironmental stimuli on nest building and farrowing behaviour in domestic sows. Appl.Anim. Behav. Sci. 63, 13 1-144.

Tillon, J.P., F. Madec. 1984. Diseases affecting confined sows. Data from epidemiologicalobservations. Ann. Rech. Vet. 15: 195-199.

Torrey, S., S. Weaver, E.A. Pajor, D. Kuhlers, and T. Stewart, 2000. Evaluatingdifferences in stress levels in lean growth versus control landrace pigs. Swine DayPublication pp. 4-5.

-45-

Sow Well-Being in Extensive Gestating Sow Housing: Outdoor and HoopBarn Systems

M.S. HoneymanAssociate Professor, Department of Animal Science

Coordinator, ISU Research and Demonstration FarmsIowa State University, Ames, Iowa

Extensive gestating sow housing is an area of increased interest. Forces related to animalwelfare, environmental protection, farm size and structure, and increasing building andenergy costs have fueled the interest. The development of niche or special markets forpork that require production systems with certain attributes (outdoors, bedding, etc.) arealso encouraging interest.

Extensive can be defined in several ways. Synonyms for extensive include expansive,spacious, large, broad, widespread, or elastic. Extensive agriculture is defined as “farmingin which large areas of land are utilized with minimum (capital) outlay and labor”. Thus,extensive sow housing is characterized by plenty of space for the sows, low capitalinvestment, and the ability to be readily expanded.

For the purpose of this paper, extensive gestating sow housing will include outdoor orpasture systems, and a more recent development—the hoop barn system. It is importantto note that although both of these systems are extensive by definition, for the systems tobe widely used in modern swine production they need to be coupled with intensivemanagement practices. Extensive swine production systems linked with intensivemanagement can produce excellent production levels.

Outdoor swine production is defined as a system that allows the pigs outside accessincluding contact with soil and growing plants (Honeyman et al., 200I c). Outdoor swineproduction has expanded rapidly in parts of Europe, South Africa, and the United States. Outdoor pig farms now include a wide range of sizes from small (<10 sows) to very large(10,000 sows). Producers in England have been aggressive in developing and refiningintensively managed outdoor swine production systems (Thornton, 1990). Estimates arethat one fourth to one third of all pigs produced in England are born in outdoor, floorlesshuts. Although rearing pigs outdoors dates back to ancient times, recent advances suchas electric fence, all-terrain vehicles, plastic ear tags, low cost plastic water pipe, andimproved farrowing huts have allowed modern outdoor pig production to be competitiveand more easily managed. In this paper housing gestating sows outdoors in concrete lotsor dirt lots will not be addressed.

Hoop barns are large, simple, tent-like shelters that can be used for pigs. The low-coststructures have been rapidly adopted in Iowa. Over 2,000 hoop barns have been builtsince 1996 by about 800 farmers (Honeyman et al., 200l b). Hoop barns, or hoops, consistof steel pipe arches or trusses covered with an ultraviolet-resistant polyvinyl fabric. Thehoop arches are attached to wooden sidewalls that are 1.2 to 2 m (4 to 6 ft) high. Theends are open most of the year except for winter in cold climates, when one or both endsare partially closed. Typically most of the floor is earthen and covered with bedding. The

-46-

pigs are kept inside the hoop barn and large bales, e.g., straw or cornstalks are used forbedding (Honeyman et al., 2001a). When hoops are used for gestating sows, the hightraffic areas for feeding and watering are covered with concrete. Sometimes individualfeeding stalls are used to insure that each sow receives their daily feed allotment (Brummet al., 1999).

Sow Well-Being

Animal well-being is defined by Ewing et al., (1999) as “the state that encompasses factorssuch as good health, a sense of safety and comfort, protection from damagingenvironments, ...and capability to engage in normal behaviors.” Also, well-being isdescribed as a “concept of a harmonic relationship between the animal and itsenvironment” (Ewing et al., 1999). Therefore positive sow well-being is characterized byhealthy, comfortable, productive animals that are protected from harmful environments andable to perform normal or natural behavior.

Ewing et al., (1999) continued that to “ensure well-being, the animal’s environment must beadequate in terms of physical, dietary, and social characteristics.” Physical environmentconsists of the area that the animal lives in and consists primarily of the thermal and spatialneeds. Dietary environment consists of the interaction between the animal, itsenvironment, and nutrients or feedstuffs. Social environment deals with animal-to-animaland animal-to-human interactions. In extensive systems, sows are maintained in groups,thus the animal-to-animal interaction is a fundamental part of managing these systems.

A comparison of sow gestation housing systems is shown in Table 1. The table is adaptedfrom Hoop Structures for Gestating Swine (Brumm et al., 1999). Outdoor pasture andhoop barn systems are compared to indoor confinement gestation stalls for physical,dietary, and social environments. A trade-off is evident in Table 1. Although outdoorpasture systems allow for maximal expression of natural sow behaviors and have a verylow housing investment, control of thermal comfort, feed, and individual sows is difficult. The individual stall in confinement presents the converse situation --- minimal natural sowbehavior and high housing investment with very good and easy control of the thermalcomfort, feed, and individual sows. The bedded hoop with feeding stalls represents anintermediate system in all categories.

Table 1. Comparison of sow gestation areas.*

-47-

Physical Environment

Extensively housed sows live in a physical environment with a wide thermal range andlarge spatial areas. The thermal neutral zone for gestating sows is from 500F to 850Fambient temperatures (Holden et al., 1996). When temperatures drop below this zone, oreffectively drop below this zone due to wind or dampness, the effect on the sow islessened by simple floor-less shelters, bedding, and the sows huddling together. Beddingis a primary tool in lessening the effects of cold. In hoop barns, the effective temperaturethat pigs feel is modified by the natural composting of the bedded pack. During Februaryin central Iowa, temperatures exceeding 400C (1040F) were found at a 15 cm (5.9 in.) depthin the bedded pack (Honeyman et al., 2001a).

In hot settings, the effects are lessened by shades and wallows and positioning shelters tocatch prevailing wind for outdoor systems. For hoop barns, drippers over the feeding stallsor concrete areas can be used. Hot temperatures coupled with high humidity and littlewind are the most problematic of any thermal condition. In extensive systems theseextreme hot conditions pose a major management challenge.

The spatial needs of gestating sows housed outdoors is usually more than adequately met. A guideline for stocking density is 15 to 37 sows per acre. Stocking density is highlyvariable depending on season, climate, soil type, topography, and vegetation type(Honeyman et al., 2001 c).

Hoop barns are more spatially restrictive. Guidelines for gestating sows in bedded hoopbarns are a minimum of 24 square feet of bedded area per sow (Brumm et al., 1999). Pens should be at least 15 feet wide to reduce control by aggressive or boss sows. Overalllayout in the hoop is usually a function of hoop width, group size, and feeding systems.

Dietary Environment

Gestating sows, because of low energy needs relative to voluntary feed intake and satiety,present a rather unique swine feeding situation. Using conventional grain and soy-baseddiets, the gestating sow is limit fed more extremely and for a longer duration than any otherphase of pig production. Feed is often the most limiting resource for the gestating sow. Special care with group-housed settings must be given to insure that each sow receivestheir daily feed allotment without major competition and stress from more aggressive sows.

Individual lockable feeding stalls provide an effective way to feed sows individually andminimize sow aggression at feeding. Additionally, the stalls provide a setting to managethe sows individually for purposes of artificial insemination, estrus checks, vaccination, etc.(Honeyman and Kent, 2001).

Because of seasonal changes in climate, gestating sows housed outdoors or in hoop barnsmay need more energy. Feed allotments are commonly increased (5 to 25%) during coldconditions to allow the sows the extra energy for maintaining their body temperature(Holden et al., 1996).

Pond (1981) suggested that feeding fibrous feeds to gestating sows could be greatlyincreased. Outdoor gestating sows on pasture will spend time grazing and foraging.

-48-

Consuming fibrous plant material can provide nutrients to the sow, as well as satisfyhunger and behavioral needs.

Reproductive performance has been maintained or improved by feeding gestating sowslarge amounts of alfalfa (Danielson and Noonan, 1975; Hagen et al., 1987; Pollman et al.,1981).

Work in Iowa with gestating gilts that were rotationally grazed on alfalfa for 42 days duringmid-gestation calculated daily alfalfa intakes of 11.5 kg (25.3 lb) as fed, or 3.2 kg DM (7.0lb DM). Daily feed allotment was reduced to 720 g (1.6 lb) of corn plus salt and a mineralphosphorous source. These gestating gilts maintained similar weight gain and back fatchange as control gilts fed 1.8 kg (4.0 lb) of corn-soy diet daily (Honeyman and Roush,1999). Although restricted to the growing season, outdoor gestating sows can meet aportion of their nutritional needs by grazing. Grazing of sows has the additionaladvantages of no manure to haul, reduced purchased feed inputs, less feed to handle,sows nearer satiety, and inclusion of a forage crop in the crop rotation (Honeyman andRoush, 1999).

Grazing is not possible for sows confined to hoop barns. However pigs in bedded hoopbarns consume some bedding (Huenke and Honeyman, 2001). The dietary role of thisconsumed bedding is viewed as positive for gestating sows, but there is no quantitative orcomprehensive information available.

Social Environment

Managing groups of gestating sows requires a slightly different approach than managingsows in individual stalls. Managing sows in extensive systems also requires a slightlydifferent approach than managing sows in an environmentally controlled confinement barn. The manager of extensive group systems must be more aware of weather changes andextremes. Sow aggression within the group, particularly related to scarce resources ---usually feed, is always a concern. Introducing new sows to the group often creates fightingthat must be addressed.

Management Experiences

Experience with managing groups of sows in deep-bedded hoop barns at Iowa StateUniversity for the past six years has led us to these conclusions:

1. Groups of sows, all of the same parity, are the easiest to manage. However, evenwithin these groups of the same parity, there are larger and aggressive individualsthat need to be considered.

2. Feeding stalls are an excellent way to manage the sows individually within the groupand to minimize fighting over feed. The stalls also provide a safe place for sows thatare the target of aggression during non-feeding times.

3. Sows randomly access feeding stalls, so extra feed for thin sows requires extra labor.4. Introducing replacement gilts to the group is a challenge. First parity gilts are best kept

separate through their first gestation, if possible. They can then be commingled after weaning of their first litter. This allows the pregnant gilts to be developed separatelyfrom older sows.

-49-

5. Weaning is a good time to introduce new sows to the group.6. Keeping a static group as much as possible is preferable. Static means managing the

group as a batch, i.e., the group is bred, farrowed, and weaned at the same time.Dynamic groups, or groups of sows where sows are added and removed frequently,must continually reestablish their social order.

7. Planning the breeding of sows housed in hoops requires special consideration. Eitherbreeding occurs in a central breeding barn with the sows later moved to a hoop, orbreeding occurs in the hoop.

8. By housing a boar adjacent to the sow pens, detection of recycling sows has beeneasy in hoop barns.

9. Soundness problems have been fewer for sows housed in bedded hoop structuresthan for sows housed on concrete slats.

10. Positioning feeding stalls on an elevated platform (about 46 cm or 18 in. high) preventsbedding from building up in the stalls.

11. The hoop barn requires cleanout 2 to 4 times per year.12. Position feeding stalls and alley along the west wall to keep the cooler east part of the

hoop available for sows.13. Construct the watering area to drain outside the hoops.14. Although expensive, an electronic feeder worked very well to feed and manage

gestating sows in the hoop.

Pros and Cons of Extensive Gestating Sow Systems

The characteristics of outdoor housing of sows and deep-bedded hoop barn systems areshown in Tables 2 and 3, respectively. An attempt to classify the characteristics as anadvantage (Pro) or disadvantage (Con) was made with an “X” in the appropriate column. Advantages and disadvantages are usually based on an individual situation or perspective. When the characteristic could have both advantages and disadvantages, both Pro and Conare noted.

Table 2. Characteristics of outdoor pasture systems.Pro Con

Portable housing, fence, feeders, waterers X XOutdoor working conditions X XSeasonal in many areas XMinimal energy requirements XLow capital needs XAdverse conditions (mud, wind, heat, cold, rain) XAmple bedding needed XExtensive land needs XUses low quality land XCan be integrated into crop rotation XThermal control difficult XFeed needs (more in winter) XPredators XProduces pigs in large groups of similar age XParasites can be soil borne XSow management can be challenging X

-50-

Flexible system-easily expanded XFeeding management more difficult XGrazing potential XNo manure to spread XPerceived as humane XEligible for some niche markets XExtensive access and logistic issues X------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 3. Characteristics of deep-bedded hoop systems. Pro Con

Improved thermal control XAmple bedding needed XSolid manure generated X XImproved feed control management XModerate capital investment XRelatively new approach XIndividual sow management with feeding stalls XFeed needs (more in winter) XVersatile structure XFeeding can be automated XAdding gilts and new sows to group XExtremely hot, humid, windless days XDetecting sows that return to estrus XPerceived as humane XEligible for some niche markets XAir quality X

Conclusion

The well-being of the gestating sow can be achieved and maintained in group-housed andextensive systems. Outdoor pasture systems have become more viable with the advent ofportable technologies (fencing, ATVs, etc.). Outdoor sows can graze to meet some of theirnutrient needs. Access and logistics are more challenging with extensive outdoor systems. The biggest challenge for outdoor sows relates to seasonality, labor, and individual sowmanagement.

A newer style of extensive housing is keeping sows in bedded hoop barns. These tent-likestructures allow an outdoor-like system to be replicated in a smaller, more controlledsetting while maintaining the advantage of low fixed costs for group-housed sows. Beddedhoop barns may prove to be a viable intermediate or compromise system that provides theadvantages of outdoors without the disadvantages of large land needs, seasonality, andlittle control over the sows thermal comfort. However, the bedded hoop systems needmore research, experience, and development.

-51-

References

Brumm, M.C., J.D. Harmon, M.S. Honeyman, J.B. Kliebenstein, and J.M. Zulovich, 1999. Hoop structures for gestating swine. AED44. Mid-West Plan Service. Iowa State Univ.,Ames, IA. 16 pp.

Danielson, D.M.,, and J.J. Noonan, 1975. Roughage in swine gestation diets. J. AnimalSci. 41:94-99.

Ewing, S.A., D.C. Lay, Jr., and E. von Borell, 1999. Farm Animal Well-Being. Prentice Hall,Upper Saddle River, N.J.

Hagen, C.D., R.L. Moser, S.G. Cornelius, and J.E. Pettigrew, 1987. Alfalfa haylage forgestating swine. J. Animal Sci. 65 (Suppl. l):l38 (Abstr.).

Holden, P., R. Ewan, M. Jurgens, T. Stably, and D. Zimmerman, 1996. Life Cycle SwineNutrition PM-489 Iowa State Univ., Ames, IA. 17 pp.

Honeyman, M.S., J.D. Harmon, J.B. Kliebenstein, and T.L. Richard, 2001a. Feasibility ofhoop structures for market swine in Iowa: Pig Performance, Pig Environment, and BudgetAnalysis. Applied Engineering in Agriculture. 1 7(6):869-874.

Honeyman, M.S., and D. Kent, 2001. Performance of a Swedish deep-bedded feeder pigproduction system in Iowa. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture. 1 6(2):50-56.

Honeyman, M.S., J. Kliebenstein, and J. Harmon, 2001b. Iowa hoop structures used forswine: a survey. ASL-Rl 780. Swine Research Report AS-646. ISU Ext. Serv. Ames, IA.

Honeyman, M.S., J.J. McGlone, J.B. Kliebenstein, and B.E. Larson, 2001c. Outdoor PigProduction. PIH-145. Pork Industry Handbook. Purdue University, W. Lafayette, IN. 9 pp.

Honeyman, M.S., and W.B. Roush. 1999. Supplementation of mid-gestation swine grazingalfalfa. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture. 14(3): 103-108.

Huenke, L., and M.S. Honeyman, 2001. Fecal fiber content of finishing pigs in hoopstructures and confinement. ASL-R1 779. Swine Research Report AS-646. ISU Ext. Serv.Ames, IA.

Pollman, D.S., D.M. Danielson, M.A. Crenshaw, and E.R. Peo, Jr., 1981. Long-termeffects of dietary additions of alfalfa and tallow on sow reproductive performance. J. AnimalSci. 51:294-299.

Pond, W.G., 1981. Limitations and opportunities in the use of fibrous and by-product feedsfor swine. In: Proc. Distillers Feed Conference 36 (April 2): Cincinnati, Ohio.

Thornton, K., 1990. Outdoor pig production. Farming Press, Ipswich, U.K.

-52-

-53-

Large Group Systems for Gestating Sows

Rebecca Morrison Ph.D.University of Minnesota, West Central Research and Outreach Center,

Morris, Minnesota

The welfare of gestating sows in confinement systems, in particular gestation stalls, isgenerating considerable interest from all realms of the pork industry. Deep-litter, grouphousing systems have been developed as an alternative to confinement stalls for gestatingsows. Deep-litter, group housing systems allow sows to be housed in groups of 15 to 200sows on a base of deep litter. These systems provide approximately 2m2 floor space persow, and systems are usually naturally ventilated

The advantages of deep-litter, group housing systems are as follows:1. Reduced capital cost2. Lower energy costs3. Perceived animal welfare benefits (sows are able to conduct locomotory behaviors,

have social and physical interactions with other sows and the bedding, and may havereduced farrowing time due to improved muscle tone and reduced lameness)

4. Anecdotal evidence that sows have increased feed intake during lactation as strawconsumption increases gut fill capacity.

Group housing systems for gestating sows have traditionally resulted in increasedaggression and embryo loss (resulting in poor reproductive performance) in sows. Factorssuch as inadequate feeding systems, poor breeding management and insufficient penspace allowance may have contributed to poor performance and welfare of sows in grouphousing systems in the past. Currently, the management of sows in group housingsystems is being reviewed, and there appears to be success in using group housingsystems. The key components to success in deep-litter group housing systems arebreeding management, feeding systems and bedding management.

Breeding management If possible sows should remain in static social groups from the timeof weaning. New sows and gilts should be introduced at this time. Thereafter, sowsshould not be mixed until after the 40th day of gestation, until embryo implantation hasoccurred (Brumm et al., 1999). There is currently insufficient data in the scientific literatureto determine which is the best group size for sow management.

Feeding systems

Individual feeding stalls Individual feeding stalls are widely used in deep-litter grouphousing systems. Stalls enable a sow to feed without being disturbed by other sows, andreceive her individualized feed requirements. Individual stalls may require more labor thenother feeding systems (especially if sows are hand fed), however they enable the producerto lock the sows in for management procedures such as artificial insemination andvaccinations. Each stall should have a lockable back gate to ensure that more dominantsows do not disturb sows feeding in their stall (Brumm et al., 1999).

Electronic feeding systems Electronic sow feeders (ESF) in group housing system willensure individual feeding of a large number of sows within a pen and avoid feed wastage.

-54-

Although group housing with ESF may improve sow welfare as compared with confinementwith regard to freedom of movement and space availability, it allows only one sow to eat ata time, resulting in a highly competitive environment and possibly in injuries. There arereports indicating higher levels of aggression and injuries in pigs housed in groups withESF (Gonyou, 2002; Broom , et al., 1995; Van Putten, et al., 1990).

Floor feeding Floor feeding allows sows to eat within a group situation in a free-for-allmanner. This feeding system requires low labor input, however can result in aggressionbetween sows, especially if there is restricted feeding space available for the sows. Furthermore the producer does not have control over individuals feed intake between sows(Brumm et al., 1999).

Bedding management

Bedding management is critical to the success of deep-litter group housing systems. Sowswill create areas within their pen for sleeping, dunging and feeding. It is essential thatthese areas are maintained, and that the bedding does not become sloppy, which mayresult in leg injuries. Furthermore, sufficient bedding must be added during the wintermonths to ensure that sows are protected from the elements. Sows must have enoughbedding to bury down into the deep litter.

References

Broom D.M., Mendl M.T., Zanella A.J., 1995. A comparison of the welfare of sows indifferent housing conditions. Anim Sci 61: 369-385.

Brumm, M.C., Harmon, J.D., Honeyman, M.S., Kliebenstein, J.B. and Zulovich, J.M., 1999.Hoop structures for gestating swine. Midwest Plan Service, Ames, Iowa.

Gonyou, H.W., 2002. Selection of a Sow Group Housing System for Prairie Swine Centreat Elstow. Western Hog Journal.

Van Putten G, Van de Burgwal J.A., 1990. Vulva bitings in group-housed sows: preliminary report. Appl Anim Behav Sci 1990; 26: 181-186.

-55-

Consumer Perspectives:Introduction

Lew SmithNational Program Leader, Animal Nutrition

USDA/ARS

This session addresses consumer perspectives of swine housing and well-being in theUnited States. The speakers will cover consumer attitudes and legislation, overviewsuccessful marketing programs, and the impact of consumers’ perspectives oninternational markets. Consumers make decisions to buy or not to buy. Consumers wereacknowledged an important force in the research/education agenda of FAIR ‘95 (FoodAnimal Integrated Research). Goal one was “Enhance industry-wide responsiveness toconsumer and societal concerns”. The other four of five goals were about supportingscientific gaps of the specific societal concerns with more research. The importance ofconsumer perspectives were re-acknowledged in FAIR 2002.

Fair 2002 is the outcome of the second national conclave to establish consensus on animalagriculture research and education priorities for the 21st century. More than 250 leadinganimal scientists, farmers, ranchers, environmentalists, animal welfare proponents,commodity group representatives, government staff, rural advocates, and agribusiness andfood service representatives gathered to determine the most pressing research andeducation needs of the animal industry.

The science behind animal agriculture affects America’s international trade balance, ourenvironment, our neighbors, local economies, and us as individuals. Competitive farmersand ranchers with the right knowledge and tools can ensure that livestock, dairy, andpoultry enterprises thrive; consumers get safe and nutritious food; and wildlife benefit fromimproved animal health and enhanced environmental stewardship. Food animals farebetter in the care of knowledgeable producers and processors, and communities reapfinancial rewards from food-processing industries.

Gains such as these require public investments in research and education that, in turn, fuelthe creation of industries and export profits that sustain communities and rural economiesacross the country. Keeping that edge will require a clear vision for the future and astrategic plan for research investments to attain the next generation of innovations.

Six goals became the foundation for FAIR 2002’s research priorities and objectives. Theseare the necessary steps to ensure that we raise the best quality animal products in theways that are “economically competitive, environmentally friendly, and socially acceptable”.

Goal six was, “Promote Animal Well-Being: Enhance Animal Well-Being throughout theFood Production Cycle”. This session of the Symposium on Swine Housing and Well-Beingbrings together the newest scientific information on consumer perspectives of this issue. Quotes are from: FAIR’95 and FAIR 2002, Federation of Animal Science Societies.

-56-

Consumer Attitudes and Legislation

Terri Dort, PresidentNational Council of Chain Restaurants

Washington, DC

Presentation not available.

-57-

USDA Process Verified Program

James L Riva, Chief, Audit, Review and Compliance BranchUSDA, Agricultural Marketing Service

Washington, DC

The Agricultural Marketing Program’s Process Verified Program provides the agriculturalindustry with independent verification of their quality management systems, and a methodto add value to and market their products using specific value added claims that were allbut impossible to verify using normal certification methods.

By using the Process Verified Program, farmers, producers, feeders, suppliers, andprocessors have a method to assure their customers that their procedures and processeswhich are designed to meet specific quality standards, are verified by the USDA, and willprovide consistent quality on a continual basis. Customers gain confidence in the qualitysystem due to the independent, third party audits that review, confirm, and verify acompany’s documented quality management system. In this process AMS verifies qualitymanagement systems and upon approval allows companies to advertise and market theirproducts as “USDA Process Verified.”

To evaluate quality systems AMS uses internationally recognized standards for qualitymanagement systems. This ensures consistent auditing practices and promotesinternational recognition of audit results.

Process Verification is a cost efficient alternative to traditional certification and productinspection; it is a third party verification of any organization’s quality management system,large or small, regardless of product, process or marketing goal.

AMS currently conducts quality systems audits for a number of Quality System VerificationPrograms. These programs are posted on the AMS website at:http://www.ams.usda.gov/process.

USDA Process Verified Approval Process1. Document

A. The Applicant documents their program quality system and processes

2. Program Operate & TestA. The Applicant operates and tests their systems with an internal audit

3. Adequacy AuditA. AMS Conducts a review of the documentation

4. Compliance AuditA. AMS conducts an onsite audit on all aspects of the applicants system

5. Program ApprovalA. Upon a successful audit AMS issues a one year approval

-58-

6. Begin MarketingA. The Applicant is posted on the AMS website and begins marketing

7. USDA MonitoringA. AMS conducts ongoing audits as outline in program requirements

Upon successfully completing the audit process the applicant will be allow to representtheir program as USDA Process Verified. The USDA Process Verified Shield may be usein conjunction with the companies verified marketing claims in all point of sale information.

USDA, AMS, LSAudit, Review, and Compliance Branch1400 Independence Avenue, S. W.Room 2625 STOP 0250Washington, DC 20250-0250Telephone: (202) 720-1124

Adequacy Audit

The Approved USDA Process Verified Programs listed below have successfully passed adocument review and onsite audit conducted by the Livestock and Seed Program, Audit,Review, and Compliance Branch as outlined in ARC Instruction 1000 and 1001; and havebeen found in compliance with all criteria of their approved quality management systems.

Approved USDA Process Verified Programs

Example Companies1. Premium Standard Farms2. Farmland Industries3. America’s Best Pork4. PM Beef Group LLC5. Pederson’s Natural Farms6. Red Angus Association of America7. Red Angus Feeder Calf Certification Program

The USDA Process Verified Program is user-fee funded. Applicants are charged an hourlyfee for documentation review, onsite audits, and for travel costs at the Governmentapproved reimbursement rate. The exact cost would vary depending on the scope of theprogram being audited, the number of locations, and other factors. In the initial audit yearof the program, applicants should expect to have a document review, a major system wideaudit, and at least one surveillance audit. AMS lead auditors will provide cost estimatesprior to providing service based on the scope and location of the program.

Applicants must submit a letter requesting services and a complete copy of the applicant’sprogram documentation along with:

1. Examples of all labels, tags, or other instruments used to identify animals or products.2. Completed examples of all forms used in the program. These examples should be

taken from actual records.

-59-

3. Copies of letters from consulting veterinarians, feed manufacturers, tag manufacturers,etc., as specified in the appropriate general requirement documents.

4. A copy of the most recent satisfactory internal audit report.

The Livestock and Seed Program, Audit, Review and Compliance (ARC) Branch currentlyconducts Quality Systems audits for a number of Quality System Verification Programs.These programs are posted on the ARC Branch website at::http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/arc/process.htm.

Through this verification, USDA Process Verified suppliers are able to have ProcessVerified Points” such as breed, feeding practices, or other raising and processing claimsverified by the USDA and market as “USDA Process Verified.”

The USDA Process Verified Program applies to livestock, meat, and agricultural productsmarketing programs submitted to the AMS Program for verification and monitoring. It islimited to programs or portions of programs where process verified points are supported bya documented quality management system. The extent of controls included in theseprograms may include all phases of production and marketing from genetic developmentthrough retail distribution, or any portion as described in the scope of the submittedprogram. Programs submitted in writing to AMS will be approved when it is determinedthat they meet the AMS criteria and the program has successfully passed on onsite audit.

AMS quality auditors are fully trained on program requirements for each specificcommodity group by experienced lead auditors. Additionally, all lead auditors have passedan American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Registrar Accreditation Board (RAB)accredited lead auditors training class and are working toward certified quality auditorsstatus. Lead auditors must maintain this status with continuing education and practicalexperience in the quality system auditing field. AMS auditors conduct audits according toISO 10011-1:1990 Guidelines for auditing quality systems, allowing internationalrecognition of results documented during the assessments.

-60-

-61-

Impact of International Markets

Mark Ritchie, PresidentInstitute for Agriculture and Trade Policy

Presentation not available.

-62-

-63-

Appendix A

Speaker Biographies

edited by Richard ReynnellsNational Program Leader, Animal Production Systems

USDA/CSREES

Richard ReynnellsDr. Reynnells earned the Ph.D., M.S., and B.S. in Poultry Science at Michigan StateUniversity. He has worked in all phases of broiler, commercial layer and game birdproduction while on the family farm or as an Extension Poultry Scientist at the University ofGeorgia. As a National Program Leader for Animal Production Systems for CSREES/PAShe serves as a liaison with the animal industries and related university departments, havingmultiple administrative or other duties, including: facilitate the definition of problem areaswith diverse stakeholders, and provide leadership in program or policy development tosolve or ameliorate these situations; coordinator for several national, animal well-being,waste management, or food safety symposia; liaison for multi-state research committees;and, professional organization roles. Current activities focus on water quality and quantity,and animal well-being issues.

Stan CurtisDr. Stan Curtis grew up on an Indiana farm and took his degrees in animal sciences atPurdue University. Since 1970 --- except for an 8-year stint as an administrator at PennState University --- he has been a professor of animal sciences at the University of Illinois. He specializes in the environmental physiology, behavior, and husbandry of livestock andother kept animals. He is considered an authority on pigs. He has received state, regional,national, and international awards recognizing his scientific and public service contributionsregarding the farm-animal welfare issue. These include the 1989 CAST Charles A. BlackAward, the 1998 AAALAC International Bennett J. Cohen Award, and the 2001 NPPCDistinguished Service Award. He is former president of American Society of AnimalScience and Federation of Animal Science Societies and Chair, of the Association forAssessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Science International.

Ray StricklinRay is currently an associate professor at the University of Maryland. His responsibilities atthe university include coordinating of Undergraduate Programs in Animal Science whichinclude Applied Animal Behavior, Animal Welfare and Introductory Animal Science. Hisprimary research interests are using his knowledge of animal social and spacing behaviorto develop computer simulations in the design of housing for animals. Ray received his BSand MS from the University of Tennessee and his PhD from Pennsylvania State University. His is a past board member of the American Society of Animal Science, Scientists Centerfor Animal Welfare, and International Society of Applied Ethology.

-64-

Cynthia SmithSince 1990 Cynthia has worked for the United States Department of Agriculture andNational Agricultural Library. Cynthia received her BS in Animal Science with a minor inPsychology, Animal Behavior Emphasis from Virginia Tech. She received her MS from theUniversity of Illinois in Animal Science, Farm Animal Ethology.

Peter R. EnglishProfessor English, BSc, NDA, PhD, recently retired as Professor of Animal Science andHusbandry at the University of Aberdeen. Served the University as a Professor, Lecturer,Researcher, Extension Specialist and Administrator. Lectured in Animal Science andAnimal Systems, animal behaviour/welfare and the education, training and motivation oflivestock farmers and stockpeople. His role as Director of two internationally respectedone year Masters Courses (Animal and Pig Production) involved him in research on the fullspectrum of animal systems which serve man throughout the world. He is the seniorauthor of three text books on swine: 'The Sow: Improving her efficiency', 'The Growing andFinishing Pig' and 'Stockmanship'. His pig research has focused on the causes andprevention of piglet mortality and on the wide spectrum of factors influencing reproduction,lactation, growth and product quality in relation to improving pig husbandry and efficiencyof production. He is the author of over 400 scientific and advisory publications related toPig/Animal Care and Production systems. He has been actively involved in translatingresearch into practice through his papers, books, lecturing and extension activities. Hisyouthful experience as a shepherd and cattleman on small family farms in the ScottishHighlands, combined with his early University responsibilities for the management of theUniversity's experimental pig herd, has been influential in his current focus of addressingthe challenge of incorporating 'stockmanship' into the scientific spectrum of factors whichimpinge on the health, welfare, productivity and efficiency of swine and other farm livestockenterprises. He was the winner of the prestigious David Black Award in 1984 for hisservices through his research and extension activities to the British Pig Industry. In 1998he received the British Society of Animal Science/RSPCA Award for his pioneeringresearch in Animal Welfare and the education, training and motivation of stockpeople. Heis a member of the UK's Farm Animal Welfare Council.

Larry R. MillerDr. Miller’s education includes a B.S. degree from Western Illinois University, an M.S.degree from Kansas State University, and a Ph.D. from Purdue University. Graduate work emphasized Animal Breeding, Growth & Muscle Biology, and Statistics. He has been anemployee of USDA since 1969 with a career traversing the Agricultural Research Service,the Joint Council on Food and Agricultural Sciences, CSRS, and CSREES. Researchprogram areas of emphasis encompass animal and veterinary sciences includingresponsibilities for animal well-being, minor use animal drugs, animal germplasmpreservation, small ruminants, and numerous other animal species.

Ed PajorEd was born in Simcoe, Ontario, Canada, where he spent his early years on his family'stobacco farm. He received his Hons. B.S. Co-op degree in biology from the University ofWaterloo. Ed completed his M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in biology from McGill University,specializing in animal behavior. Ed's graduate research focused on swine behavior andwelfare, specifically the piglet's adaptation to weaning, parent-offspring interactions, andthe development of alternative housing systems for sows and piglets. Ed's research was

-65-

carried out at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada in Ottawa, Ontario. After completing hisPh.D., Ed worked for two years at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's Dairy and SwineResearch and Development Centre located in Lennoxville, Quebec as a Post-doctoralresearch fellow. Ed's research focused on the effect of aversive handling on thedevelopment of fear in dairy cattle. Ed joined the faculty of the Animal SciencesDepartment at Purdue University in July of 1999. Ed's responsibilities include teaching,research, and extension. Ed's research in animal behavior and welfare focuses on sowhousing and dairy cattle management. Ed also serves on several boards and committees.

Mark HoneymanMark is an associate professor of animal science at Iowa State University where heteaches swine management and animal nutrition. He also coordinates the ISU Researchand Demonstration Farm system, a state-wide network of sixteen farms. Honeymanconducts research in swine nutrition and production. His work has focused on extensivealternative swine production including outdoor, deep-bedded, and hoop barn systems. Heis keenly interested in the role of livestock, particularly swine, in sustainable agriculture. Previously he was a partner in his family's farming operation in southwest Iowa. He earnedhis B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. degrees in animal science and nutrition from Iowa StateUniversity.

Rebecca MorrisonRebecca received her PhD in 2001 from University of Melbourne, Australia in SwineBehavior and Welfare. Her thesis title was "The behavior, welfare and performance ofgrowing pigs in deep litter group housing systems." Rebecca is currently at the Universityof Minnesota, West Central Research & Outreach Center, Sustainable Swine ProductionSystems Scientist (Alternative Swine Housing Systems).

Lewis W. SmithLewis was born in York, Pennsylvania, grew up in Northern Baltimore County, Maryland, ona dairy-poultry farm, and was active in the Future Farmers of America in High School. Hecompleted requirements for B.S. in 1959, M.S. in 1961, and Ph.D. in 1968, all at theUniversity of Maryland, College Park, with emphasis in dairy science, animal science, andchemistry. Dr. Smith started his career with the United States Department ofAgriculture-Agricultural Research Service, in Beltsville, Maryland, in 1961 with the DairyCattle Research Branch. His research focused on waste and forage utilization, foragechemistry, biochemistry, and ruminant digestive physiology. He has held positions in theAgency, as Scientist, Research Leader, Institute Director, National Program Leader forAnimal Nutrition, and since January, 2002 National Program Leader for Aquaculture andAnimal Well-Being. As National Program Leader, Dr. Smith has lead responsibility for theARS National Programs, Aquaculture and Animal Well-Being and Stress Control Systems. In addition, he is a member of the management teams of several other National ResearchPrograms including Food Animal Production; Rangelands, Pastures and Forages; andManure and Byproduct Utilization. Dr. Smith holds membership in the American DairyScience Association, American Society of Animal Science, and American Registry ofProfessional Animal Scientists. He has served in various advisory or consulting roles fornational and international organizations or governments, most recently on a scientificorientation to the Azores. Dr. Smith has authored or co-authored over 125 scientificreports. He and his wife, Kay have a son, Scott and daughter, Paige.

-66-

Terrie M. DortTerrie has been the President of the National Council of Chain Restaurants (NCCR) for thelast ten years. In this role she had led the industry, including such giants as McDonald'sand Burger King, in their successful opposition to many onerous legislative initiatives. NCCR has also taken a leadership role in public policy issues of interest to the industrysuch as smoking in restaurants and violence in the workplace. Ms. Dort was formerly aVice President at Rowland and Sellery, a government relations consulting firm, where shedirected and managed all aspects of legislative strategy programs. Prior to her position atRowland and Sellery, she was a Government Affairs Representative in the Washington,DC office of Deere and Company. For eight years she represented this Fortune 100Company on the Hill and before trade associations and coalitions. From 1991 - 1993, Ms.Dort served on the Board of Directors of Women in Government Relations. She receivedher Masters in International Business from George Washington University in 1985.

James RivaJames has been with the USDA for 30 years. He started his career with FSIS in 1972working for 10 years as a first line inspector. In 1982 he moved to AMS Meat Grading andCertification Branch where he spent 15 years as a USDA Meat Grader. In 1996 he wasreassigned to work in the AMS Livestock and Seed Program Audit program know as theQuality Systems Certification Program working as a Lead Auditor. He then accepted a jobwith the Farm Service Agency, Commodity Operations as the Director of their Total QualitySystems Audit Program. James returned to AMS, and is currently the Branch Chief of theLivestock and Seed Program, Audit, Review and Compliance Branch working in theWashington, DC office.

Mark RitchieMark is President of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy in Minneapolis, MN. Hereceived his Masters in International Public Law in 1994 from the University of Amsterdam. In 1971 he received his BSc from Iowa State University in the Honors Program. Ritchie'sprofessional activities and affiliations include Co-Organizer and Faculty for the SalzburgSeminar on Global Food Systems in the 21st Century, American Agricultural EconomicAssociation, The Academic Council on the United Nations System, International Forum onFood and Agriculture as well as many others. Mark has many publications and presentedon a variety of programs.

-67-

Appendix B

Speaker and Contributor Contact Information

edited by Richard ReynnellsNational Program Leader, Animal Production Systems

USDA/CSREES

Michael Appleby, Vice PresidentFarm Animals and Sustainable AgricultureThe Humane Society of the United States2100 L Street, NWWashington, DC 20037T#: 301.258.3111F#: 301.258.3081email: mappleby@hsus.org

Stan Curtis, EmeritusDepartment of Animal SciencesAnimal Sciences Laboratory1207 W. Gregory DriveUniversity of IllinoisUrbana, IL 61801T#: 217.333.6489F#: 217.244.2871email: securtis@uiuc.edu

Terri Dort, PresidentNational Council of Chain Restaurants325 7th Street, NW, Suite 1100Washington, DC 20004T#: 202.626.8183F#: 202.626.8185email: dortt@nrf.com

Peter English, EmeritusDepartment of Agriculture & ForestryUniversity of Aberdeen581 King Street,Aberdeen, UK AB24 5UAT#: (011) 44 (0).1224.274201; 431.9306F#: (011) 44 (0).1224.273731email: p.english@abdn.ac.uk

-68-

Mark Honeyman20 Curtiss HallIowa State UniversityAmes, IA 50011T#: 515.294.4621F#: 515.294.6210email: honeyman@iastate.edu

Anna Johnson, DirectorAnimal WelfareNational Pork BoardPO Box 9114Des Moines, IA 50306T#: 515.223.3533F#: 515.223.2646email: Anna.Johnson@porkboard.orgInternet: www.porkboard.orgOffice Location: 1776 NW 114th Street

Clive, IA 50325

John McGloneDepartment of Animal ScienceTexas Tech UniversityLubbock, TX 79409T#: 806.742.2533F#: 806.742.2335email: anjjm@attacs.ttu.edu

Larry Miller, National Program Leader, Animal Production SystemsUnited States Department of Agriculture (USDA)Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service (CSREES)800 9th Street SW, Room 3130 Waterfront CentreWashington, Dc 20250-2220T#: 202.401.6848F#: 202.401.1602email: lmiller@reeusda.gov

Rebecca Morrison, Alternative Swine Housing ScientistWest Central Research and Outreach CenterUniversity of MinnesotaState Highway 329P.O. Box 471Morris, MN 56267T#: 320.589.1711F#: 320.589.4870email: morrisrs@mrs.umn.edu

-69-

Ed PajorDepartment of Animal Sciences1026 Poultry Building, Room 207Purdue UniversityWest Lafayette, IN 47907-1026T#: 765.496.6665F#: 765.494.9347email: pajor@purdue.edu

Richard Reynnells, National Program Leader, Animal Production SystemsUnited States Department of Agriculture (USDA)Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service (CSREES)800 9th Street SW, Room 3130 Waterfront CentreWashington, Dc 20250-2220T#: 202.401.5352F#: 202.401.6156email: rreynnells@reeusda.gov

Mark Ritchie, PresidentInstitute for Agriculture and Trade Policy2105 First Avenue SouthMinneapolis, MN 55404T#: 612.870.3400F#: 612.870.4846email: mritchie@iatp.orgInternet: http://www.iatp.org

James Riva, Agricultural Marketing SpecialistUSDA, Agricultural Marketing Service, Audit, Review and ComplianceRoom 2634 South Building1400 Independence Avenue, SWWashington, DC 20250T#: 202.720.1124F#: 202.690.4119email: James.Riva@usda.gov

Cynthia SmithUSDA, Agricultural Research Service (ARS), National Agricultural Library (NAL), Animal Welfare Information Center (AWIC)10301 Baltimore Blvd.Beltsville, MD 20705-2351T/F#: 518.383.8146email: csmith35@nycap.rr.com

-70-

Lew Smith, National Program Leader, Animal NutritionUSDA/ARS, National Program Staff5601 Sunnyside AvenueBuilding 4, Room 2168Beltsville, MD 20705-5138T#: 301.504.5925F#: 301.504.5467email: lws@ars.usda.gov

Ray StricklinAnimal and Avian Sciences Department1413A AnSc/AgEn BuildingUniversity of MarylandCollege Park, MD 20742-2311T#: 301.405.1374/1373F#: 301.314.9059email: ws31@umail.umd.edu

-71-

Appendix C

Future Research Needs Highlighted by the Speakers

Anna JohnsonDirector, Animal Welfare

National Pork Board

1. Detailed research conducted on the role and skills of the stockperson. There is a needfor detailed on farm training programs. In today’s society where more workers comefrom an increasingly urbanized background, skills that producers take for granted arelacking in the majority of new personnel and we may often under estimate thechallenges imposed. These challenges could then result in unmotivated staff thateventually will leave the profession (Peter English).

2. Pre-weaning mortality is often comprised of primary and secondary factors. One areathat must be addressed in detail is the role of hypothermia in baby piglets. This mayoften be the starting point, which leads onto crushing or starvation of piglets (PeterEnglish).

3. A survey should be conducted to directly compare producers and consumer’s ideas onwhat welfare is, the components of welfare, and what it means to both parties. Limitedsurveys have been conducted and even less have directly compared these diversegroups. One issue that should be addressed is biosecurity. From a producer’s point ofview of protecting his animals from outside disease versus the consumer who thinksthat producers keep them off their property because they have “something” to hide.

4. Pork producers need to have some educational material that can be taught at a varietyof levels (school, college, universities and outside adult groups). Animals rights groupsemploy personnel specifically to travel the country and invest money in such material. Educators currently can only show and teach one side of the argument. Oftencommodity groups fare poorly against such material and with consumers having littleunderstanding of farms, transport and slaughter facilities they often believe heavily insuch material and concern over the accuracy of facts is often raised (Generaldiscussion).

5. Address the issue of having one size of gestation stall on a farm, when gilts/sowsranges in size as they increase through parities (Edmond Pajor).

6. Previous research work, which has compared different gestating sow housing systems,may have flaws because “noise” has been included into this research. For examplehousing systems are compared on different sites, which can introduce differentmanagement, feeding, and occasionally genetics. Conclusions are then difficult tocompare. Future work must ensure that comparisons are made on the same sitepreferably within the same barn (Edmond Pajor).

7. Feeding management possibilities for the sow must be considered. If the USA followsthe EU in dictating that all sows must be able to eat simultaneously then would the

-72-

Electronic Sow Feeding System (ESF) research work become redundant? (Generaldiscussion).

8. Mixing of gestating sows, management and the issue of aggression in group housingmust be researched more thoroughly to understand what the stockperson can do tominimize and/or eliminate these problems. If alternative systems are to work,aggression must be managed (Edmond Pajor).

9. There is a huge gap in information for the producer in regards to retrofitting andeconomic cost. If producers want to change from a stall to pen they need to have aresource to be able to guide them (General discussion).

10. Research on housing gestating sows in large groups must be researched morethoroughly. Little work has focused on groups of 60 or more sows and howbehavior, hierarchy, performance and physiology are affected. Do they maintainsocial sub-groups within one large group or does this get abandoned? (RebeccaMorrison).

11. Work must be conducted in regards to housing for the gestating sow and how thisimpacts on the farrowing phase. It has been proposed that sows that have accessto straw and/or a fibrous material throughout gestation can increase their gutcapacity and later the physiology of the stomach. Therefore when sows areplaced into farrowing stalls and do not have access to substrate is her welfare thencompromised? (Rebecca Morrison).

12. Role of genetics is crucial when implementing different systems for the gestatingsow. Over the past two decades the breeding companies have been selecting forproduction-oriented traits and meat quality. This has resulted in sows, which maybe suited to a stall but may lack the structural soundness and body conformationfor pens or pasture living (Edmond Pajor).

13. Space (dynamic and static) needs for gestating sows kept in all systems must tobe researched and for these dimensions to be backed with science (JohnMcGlone).

14. Swine (all phases of production) that has access to some form of substrate will eatthis bedding. Research needs to address how much they eat, and how it affectstheir physiology and gut structure. In addition if the provided substrate provided tothe animals has been treated with insecticides and or pesticide does this result inresidues within meat that could be harmful to the consumer? (Rebecca Morrison).

15. Research on the floor structure should also be considered. Will the USA followthe EU, who is currently implementing totally solid floor and substrate use? Oncethe gestation stall has been decided upon what other issues will then becomedebatable? (General discussion)

-73-

Appendix D

Speaker Responses to Questions

Michael Appleby Vice President, Farm Animals and Sustainable Agriculture

Humane Society of the United States

Swine Housing and Well-Being: Questions and Answers

Session 1

Question What is involved with a well-being index?

Peter English Piglet well-being is all to do with understanding and meeting theneeds of the animal. For example, if immunity is boosted, theanimal can cope better with its environment.

Question As an independent producer, what types of information areappropriate for me to use with high-school students, full-timeworkers and so on?

Cynthia Smith For high school, we have information available on animalwelfare for teachers, on videos and so on, for example on thedifference between animal welfare and animal rights. Somecompanies let you preview videos before buying. One exampleof a useful video would be on daily procedures such as needleteeth clipping.

Peter English There was a question about our interactive CDs for stockpeopleand managers: these are now available.

Question If you have to appoint one person, good with either staff or pigs,which would you choose?

Peter English The former is important with a large staff. For a small staff, anall-rounder is important.

Question How do you instill a good attitude: do you have to be born with‘ethics’ or can the attitude be taught?

Ray Stricklin There is already much caring, but we can help improve this.Stan Curtis There are some people more interested and more trainable.

Others can be helped, but something very useful would be aprobation period --- if someone doesn’t ‘belong’ on an animalfarm they should be ‘let go’.

Cynthia Smith Temple Grandin has said that staff attitude follows that ofmanagement.

Peter English I do not believe the common idea that ‘Good stock people are

-74-

born not made’ --- it is 10% ‘genetic’ and 90% ‘environmental’. Training is possible, but I agree that a period of probation wouldbe good.

Question Where are the best trainers found --- off or on-site?

Peter English It is best to find them on the farm, then the farm can beindependent --- can tackle tasks when they arise, when time isavailable and so on. Interactive packages (CDs, etc) help withthis. Outside help is good, but big companies can develop in-house schemes.

Cynthia Smith The New Zealand program is good and much of it is available inpackage form.

Question Is the general public’s view of animal welfare the same asproducers’?

Ray Stricklin What do we mean by welfare? There is a lack ofcommunication on these issues between industry and public,worsened by increasing intensiveness, confinement andbiosecurity. There is a lot of agreement on ethics --- forexample, that it is wrong to cause unnecessary pain --- butmore disagreement on what is appropriate or necessary.

Peter English The consuming public is a varied group. There have beendemands for better welfare, but the public is not always willingto pay extra, for example for getting rid of stalls.

Stan Curtis The general public does have its own concepts of welfare, butover the last 25 years values and concerns of the general publichave changed, which makes it difficult for the industry to satisfythose concerns. Restaurants are less concerned about welfareas such, more about satisfying the general public’s concerns. The latter are often whims, and these should not formguidelines for industry, which should be based on science. Andscience is reaching a consensus on what actually constituteswell-being: this should be what we base practice on. Somedemands on how we raise animals don’t make sensescientifically and the industry reasonably says that they cannotmeet such demands. They tend to respond by saying ‘Go andfind someone else who can keep pigs like that and buy yourpork from them.’

Session 2

Question Has it been shown that sows in crates with a common troughreceive the same amount of feed?

John McGlone This cannot be referring to crates, in which feeding is separate,but to stalls. No, there is variation in feeding unless stalls havesystems to lock sows in during feeding or trickle feeding ifpossible. This is one of the major problems of group housing.

-75-

Question Is there information on variation in aggression between geneticlines?

Ed Pajor Not much, although such variation is apparent. Most selectionhas been for production traits. We should incorporate behaviorinto breeding programs in the future.

Question As a producer, I understand that public perception is a realfactor, but I am concerned that PETA and other groupsinfluence USDA and policy decisions. Is this unscientific?

RebeccaMorrison PETA and other animal rights groups have sparked interest in

these issues but are not driving policy. Groups like the NationalPork Board do take science into account.

Ed Pajor Animal rights groups are good at taking credit for change, but amore potent driving force is concern for food safety. People arediscovering the reality of farming as a result and that oldimages, such as a farm with two cows, are out of date.

Question How many square feet are needed per sow?

John McGlone Recommendations are for 16 sq ft per sow in groups and 14 incrates. In fact some sharing is possible, so less than 16 mightbe possible in groups. For ‘normal postural adjustment’, anarea 35" wide and 7.5' long is needed.

Question Are there effects of social rank or dominance hierarchy onperformance?

John McGlone In groups, these affect reproduction. Low ranking animals losepregnancy more often, but the average in groups is still thesame as that in crates.

Question Are pesticide residues found when sows are kept on bedding?

Mark Honeyman This has not been studied to my knowledge.

Question Would the price of Electronic Sow Feeders come down ifgestation crates were banned?

MarkHoneyman It might well, because of larger scale production.

-76-

Session 3

Question How do you deal with biosecurity issues, when makingunannounced audits?

Jim Riva We arrive and explain why we’re there, then comply with any oftheir regulations—clothing, etc.—but without notice.

Question Have you read “Fast Food Nation”? Do you have anyobservations on it?

Terri Dort Yes and yes. I bought it to debate Eric Schlosser on a TVprogram. It is interesting, but an exaggerated picture. He hadan agenda and found worst examples of everything. It’s anawful book.

Lew Smith That may be so, but one of my concerns is the extent ofmarketing to children in food stores and so on.

Question You said that the NCCR guidelines will be announced in lateJune, but what will be the date and method for full publication?

Terri Dort Different groups (e.g., poultry producers) have differentprocedures for member-approval, so although the first phaserelease will be late June, full release will be intermittent. Itshould be complete by late summer. There will then be a pressconference and so on.

Question Changes in rural structure are often blamed on consolidation ofagriculture. What about consolidation of other industries— whatimpact does this have?

Jim Riva There is mandatory livestock reporting in AMS procedures. Ihave seen industry go from many small packers to a few largeones—there are advantages and disadvantages of thisincluding improved hygiene. We are monitoring such changes.

-77-

Appendix E

Summary of Questions to Specific Speakers

Richard ReynnellsNational Program Leader, Animal Production Systems

USDA/CSREES

These questions reflect areas of interest that could be addressed in educational andresearch programs in the future. Questions represent audience requests that were notaddressed due to time constraints.

To: Anyone

A. Advice on retrofitting group housed barns (i.e., 12 sows in pen with 14 sq. Ft./sow). Should we open up....3 pens into one? Use feeding stations? Skip feeding? How toAI? How to feed thin sows?

B. Average sow’s weight? Determine crate postural adjustments. (Session 2)C. Genetic lines...what factors determine agro-economics?D. Should a gestation housing system provide for the sow to build a nest, an innate

behavior expressed at farrowing? (Session 2)

To: Terri Dort

A. Changes in the structure of rural communities is blamed on the consolidation of animalagriculture. What effect does the consolidation of restaurants (e.g., McDonalds;Bennigans), hardware stores (e.g., Wal-Mart), clothing stores (e.g., K-Mart), groceries(e.g., Safeway, Giant) and other chain/franchises have on this structure? Why is thissituation not discussed? What is the impact on the producer?

B. What can the pork industry do to help your members when they are attacked by PETA?C. Could you further explain the research that your association or members have done on

consumer’s perceptions of animal welfare guidelines?D. Are there NCCR standards for beef and dairy...if not, why not? Issues with beef can be

addressed through the packers.

To: Ed Pajor

A. Every time the swine industry fights off proposed legislation related to animal welfare, isthere not a net loss in consumer confidence in pork as a product?

-78-

-79-

Appendix F

Availability of Resources, Models, and Training Programs: A Summary

Cynthia P. Smith, M.S., Technical Information SpecialistUnited States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service,

National Agricultural Library, Animal Welfare Information Center

Abstract: Information regarding the well-being of swine is often presented to producers asa “hot topic.” Developing legislative issues will continue to keep swine housing and well-being at the forefront. However interest in swine housing and well-being is not new. In theUnited States, studies have been conducted for over twenty years on sow housing,problems associated with weaning, mixing pigs, handling, and environmental enrichment. As with all scientific research as information is gained more questions remain to beanswered. Therefore, the task of providing the producer with information to make farmmanagement decisions is not easy but a baseline of data does exist.

Currently, a collaborative project between government, academia, and several non-profitorganizations is underway to develop a resource guide to assist producers and swineeducators (extension swine specialists, animal scientists, and veterinarians) withinformation related to swine well-being, care, housing, and stockmanship. The majority ofthe resources listed will be accessible using a personal computer, the internet, and theservices of a local public library.

Over two thousand citations from the past several years have already been selected from agricultural, medical sciences, and biological sciences literature databases for inclusion inthe resource guide. These citations cover swine production systems from all over theworld and include both intensive and extensive production systems operating under avariety of climatic conditions. Citations have been included from peer reviewed journals,proceedings, textbooks, handbooks, guidebooks, video cassettes, and training kits. Citations cover a broad range of subject areas including: behavior, feeding, health,housing, husbandry, legislation, reproduction, slaughter, and transport. In addition tobibliographic information the guide will also contain a section listing annotated web links tofull text materials, audiovisual clips, specialized databases, and other resources availableon the World Wide Web.

During the development of this project there was discussion on the need for trainingmaterials to be made available to US swine educators and producers at a reasonable costand in user friendly formats. With this goal in mind a number of training materials in theform of videocassettes, training kits, and CD-ROMs are currently being purchased forinclusion in the USDA National Agricultural Library’s collection. These useful materials willthen be made available through interlibrary loan to smaller academic and public libraries. Please visit the National Agricultural Library Document Delivery Service athttp://www.nal.usda.gov/ddsb/ for information on lending policies and restrictions.

A tremendous amount of effort has been made to improve the quality and availability ofdecision making tools available for today’s producer and other swine related professionals.

-80-

These tools will only be effective if they can be integrated into the regular training andeducational programs offered at each facility whether it be small or large.

The following is a selected listing of recent publications covering the care and welfare ofswine that will be included in the final resource guide.

Behavior

Beattie, V.E.; Sneddon, I.A.; Walker, N.; Weatherup, R.N. (2001). Environmentalenrichment of intensive pig housing using spent mushroom compost. AnimalScience: an International Journal of Fundamental and Applied Research 72(1): 35-42.

Boyle, L.A.; Leonard, F.C.; Lynch, P.B.; Brophy, P. (2000). Influence of housing systemduring gestation on the behaviour and welfare of gilts in farrowing crates. AnimalScience: an International Journal of Fundamental and Applied Research 71(3): 561-570.

Day, J.E.L.; Spoolder, H.A.M.; Burfoot, A.; Chamberlain, H.L.; Edwards, S.A. (2002). Theseparate and interactive effects of handling and environmental enrichment on thebehaviour and welfare of growing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 75(3):177-192.

Gonyou, H.W. (2001). The social behaviour of pigs. In: Social Behaviour in FarmAnimals Keeling, L.J.; Gonyou, H.W. (Eds.), CABI Publishing: Wallingford, UK, p.147-176.

Held, S.; Mendl, M. (2001). Behaviour of the young weaner pig. In: The Weaner Pig:Nutrition and Management Varley, M.A.; Wiseman, J. (Eds.), CABI Publishing: Wallingford,UK, p.273-297.

Johnson, A.K.; Morrow-Tesch, J.L.; McGlone, J.J. (2001). Behavior and performance oflactating sows and piglets reared indoors or outdoors. Journal of Animal Science79(10): 2571-2579.

Marchant, J.N.; Broom, D.M.; Corning, S. (2001). The influence of sow behaviour onpiglet mortality due to crushing in an open farrowing system. Animal Science: anInternational Journal of Fundamental and Applied Research. 72(1): 19-28.

Turner, S.P., Edwards, S.A.; Bland, V.C. (1999). The influence of drinker allocation andgroup size on the drinking behaviour, welfare and production of growing pigs.Animal Science: an International Journal of Fundamental and Applied Research 68(4):617-624.

Whittemoore, C.T. (1998). Pig behaviour and welfare. In: The Science and Practice ofPig Production, Blackwell Science: Oxford; Malden, Mass, 2nd ed., p.131-166.

Breeding

Henryon, M.; Berg, P.; Jensen, J.; Andersen, S. (2001). Genetic variation for resistanceto clinical and subclinical diseases exists in growing pigs. Animal Science: an

-81-

International Journal of Fundamental and Applied Research 73(3): 375-387.

Knol, E.F.; Ducro, B.J.; Van Arendonk, J.A.M.; Van der Lende, T. (2002). Direct, maternaland nurse sow genetic effects on farrowing, pre-weaning and total piglet survival.Livestock Production Science 73(2-3): 153-164.

Visscher, A.H.; Janss, L.L.G.; Niewold, T.A.; de Greef, K.H. (2002). Disease incidenceand immunological traits for the selection of healthy pigs. A review. VeterinaryQuarterly (Netherlands) 24(1): 29-34.

Feeding

Andersen, I.L.; Boe K.E.; Kristiansen, A.L. (1999). The influence of different feedingarrangements and food type on competition at feeding in pregnant sows. AppliedAnimal Behaviour Science 65(2): 91-104.

Aumaitre, A.L.; Fernandez, J.A.; Wiseman, J. (2001). Special issue: The role of dietaryfibre in pig production. Animal Feed Science and Technology 90(½): 1-115.

Han, I.K.; Lee, J.H.; Piao, X.S.; Li, D. (2001). Feeding and management system toreduce environmental pollution in swine production: Review. Asian AustralasianJournal of Animal Sciences 14(3): 432-444.

McGlone, J.J.; Fullwood, S.D. (2001). Behavior, reproduction, and immunity of cratedpregnant gilts: effects of high dietary fiber and rearing environment. Journal of AnimalScience 79(6): 1466-1474.

Ramonet, Y.; Meunier-Salaun M.C.; Dourmad J.Y. (1999). High-fiber diets in pregnantsows: digestive utilization and effects on the behavior of the animals. Journal ofAnimal Science 77(3): 591-599.

Spoolder, H.A.M.; Edwards, S.A.; Corning, S. (1999). Effects of group size and feederspace allowance on welfare in finishing pigs. Animal Science: an International Journalof Fundamental and Applied Research 69(3): 481-489.

Whittemore, C.T.; Green, D.M.; Knap, P.W. (2001). Technical review of the energy andprotein requirements of growing pigs: food intake. Animal Science: an InternationalJournal of Fundamental and Applied Research 73(Part 1): 3-17.

Health

Georgsson, L.; Svendsen, J. (2001). One or two feeders for groups of 16 growing-finishing pigs: Effects on health and production. Acta Agriculturae ScandinavicaSection A Animal Science 51(4): 257-264.

Groot, J. de; Ruis, M.A.W.; Scholten, J.W.; Koolhaas, J.M.; Boersma, W.J.A. (2001).Long-term effects of social stress on antiviral immunity in pigs. Physiology and

-82-

Behavior 73(½): 145-158.

Henryon, M.; Berg, P.; Jensen, J.; Andersen, S. (2001). Genetic variation for resistanceto clinical and subclinical diseases exists in growing pigs. Animal Science: anInternational Journal of Fundamental and Applied Research 73(3): 375-387.

Mouttotou, N.; Hatchell, F.M.; Green, L.E. (1999). Foot lesions in finishing pigs andtheir associations with the type of floor. Veterinary Record: Journal of the BritishVeterinary Association 144(23): 629-632.

Otake, S.; Dee, S.A.; Rossow, K.D.; Deen, J.; Joo, H.S.; Molitor, T.W.; Pijoan, C. (2002).Transmission of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus by fomites(boots and coveralls). Journal of Swine Health and Production 10( 2 ): 59-65.

Thomsen, L.E.; Mejer, H.; Wendt, S.; Roepstorff, A.; Hindsbo, O. (2001). The influence ofstocking rate on transmission of helminth parasites in pigs on permanent pastureduring two consecutive summers. Veterinary Parasitology 99(2): 129-46, ISSN: 0304-4017 Keywords: Helminthiasis, transmission, growth and development, body weight,epidemiology, feces, parasitology, parasite egg count, Denmark.

Visscher, A.H.; Janss, L.L.G; Niewold, T.A.; de Greef, K.H. (2002). Disease incidenceand immunological traits for the selection of healthy pigs. A review. VeterinaryQuarterly 24(1): 29-34.

Housing

Barnett, J.L.; Hemsworth, P.H.; Cronin, G.M.; Jongman, E.C.; Hutson, G.D. (2001). Areview of the welfare issues for sows and piglets in relation to housing. AustralianJournal of Agricultural Research 52(1): 1-28.

Boyle, L.A.; Leonard, F.C.; Lynch, P.B.; Brophy, P. (2002). Effect of gestation housingon behaviour and skin lesions of sows in farrowing crates. Applied Animal BehaviourScience 76(2): 119-134.

Cox, L.N.; Cooper, J.J. (2001). Observations on the pre-and post-weaning behaviourof piglets reared in commercial indoor and outdoor environments. Animal Science: anInternational Journal of Fundamental and Applied Research 72(1): 75-86.

Gallmann, E.; Brose, G.; Hartung, E.; Jungbluth, T. (2001). Influence of different pighousing systems on odor. Water Science and Technology: a Journal of the InternationalAssociation on Water Pollution Research 44(9): 237-244.

Honeyman, M.S.; Roush, W.B. (2002). The effects of outdoor farrrowing hut type onprewean piglet mortality in Iowa. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 17(2): 92-95.

Kelly, H.R.C.; Bruce, J.M.; Edwards, S.A.; English, P.R.; Fowler, V.R. (2000). Limbinjuries, immune response and growth performance of early-weaned pigs in differenthousing systems. Animal Science: An International Journal of Fundamental and Applied

-83-

Research 70(1):73-83.

Klont, R.E.; Hulsegge, B.; Hoving-Bolink, A.H.; Gerritzen, M.A.; Kurt, E.; Winkelman-Goedhart, H.A.; de Jong, I.C. (2001). Relationships between behavioral and meatquality characteristics of pigs raised under barren and enriched housing conditions.Journal of Animal Science 79(11): 2835-43.

Krieter, J. (2002). Evaluation of different pig production systems including economic,welfare and environmental-aspects. Archiv fur Tierzucht 45(3): 223-235.

McGlone, J.J.; Fullwood, S.D. (2001). Behavior, reproduction, and immunity of cratedpregnant gilts: effects of high dietary fiber and rearing environment. Journal of AnimalScience 79(6): 1466-1474.

Pajor, E.A.; Weary, D.M., Fraser, D., Kramer D.L. (1999). Alternative housing for sowsand litters. 1. Effects of sow-controlled housing on responses to weaning. AppliedAnimal Behaviour Science 65(2):105-121.

Husbandry

Coleman, G.J.; Hemsworth, P.H.; Hay, M.; Cox, M. (2000). Modifying stockpersonattitudes and behaviour towards pigs at a large commercial farm. Applied AnimalBehaviour Science 66(1-2):11-20.

Hunter, E.J.; Jones, T.A.; Guise, H.J.; Penny, R.H.C.; Hoste, S. (2001). The relationshipbetween tail biting in pigs, docking procedure and other management practices. TheVeterinary Journal 161(1): 72-79.

Taylor, A.A.; Weary, D.M.; Lessard, M.; Braithwaite, L. (2001). Behavioural responses ofpiglets to castration: the effect of piglet age. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 73(1):35-43.

Yu, I.T.; Lin, J.; Wu, J.F.; Yen, H.T.; Lee, S.L.; Yang, T.S. (2002). Reevaluation of thenecessity of iron injection to newborn piglets. Asian Australasian Journal of AnimalSciences 15(1): 79-83.

Legislation

Bach Knudsen, K.E. (2001). Development of antibiotic resistance and options toreplace antimicrobials in animal diets. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 60(3): 291-299.

Pellini, T.; Morris, J. (2001). A framework for assessing the impact of the IPPCdirective on the performance of the pig industry. Journal of Environmental Management63(3): 325-333.

Wierup, M. (2001). The Swedish experience of the 1986 year ban of antimicrobial

-84-

growth promoters, with special reference to animal health, disease prevention,productivity, and usage of antimicrobials. Microbial Drug Resistance 7(2): 183-190.

Reproduction

Evans, A.C.; O' Doherty, J.V. (2001). Endocrine changes and management factorsaffecting puberty in gilts. Livestock Production Science 68(1): 1-12.

Singleton, W. L. (2001). State of the art in artificial insemination of pigs in the UnitedStates. Theriogenology 56(8):1305-1310.

Tummaruk, P.; Lundeheim, N.; Einarsson, S.; Dalin, A.M. (2001). Repeat breeding andsubsequent reproductive performance in Swedish Landrace and Swedish Yorkshiresows. Animal Reproduction Science 67(3-4): 267-280.

Slaughter

Aaslyng, M.D.; Gade, P.B. (2001). Low stress pre-slaughter handling: effect of lairagetime on the meat quality of pork. Meat Science 57(1): 87-92.

Chevillon, P. (2001). Pig welfare during pre-slaughter and stunning. In: Proceedings ofthe 1st International Virtual Conference on Pork Quality: Welfare, Transport, Slaughter andConsumer, Concordia, Brazil, November 16- December 16, 2000, EMBRAPA Suinos eAves Documentos, 69, pp.178-202.Available online at: http://www.cnpsa.embrapa.br/pork/indice.en.html

Faucitano, L. (2001). Causes of skin damage to pig carcasses. Canadian Journal ofAnimal Science 81(1): 39-45.

Grandin, T. (2001). Solving return to sensibility problems after electrical stunning incommercial pork slaughter plants. Journal of the American Veterinary MedicalAssociation 219(5): 608-611.

Raj, A.B.M. (1999). Behaviour of pigs exposed to mixtures of gases and the timerequired to stun and kill them: welfare implications. The Veterinary Record: Journal ofthe British Veterinary Association 144(7):165-168.Stoier, S.; Aaslyng, M.D.; Olsen, E.V.; Henckel, P. (2001). The effect of stress duringlairage and stunning on muscle metabolism and drip loss in Danish pork. MeatScience 59(2): 127-131.

Swanenburg, M.; Urlings, H.A.P.; Keuzenkamp, D.A.; Snijders, J.M.A. (2001). Salmonellain the lairage of pig slaughterhouses. Journal of Food Protection 64(1): 12-16, ISSN:0362-028X.

Transportation

Berry, R.J.; Lewis, N.J. (2001). The effect of duration and temperature of simulatedtransport on the performance of early-weaned piglets. Canadian Journal of AnimalScience 81(2): 199-204.

-85-

Bradshaw, R.H.; Randall, J.M.; Forsling, M.L.; Rodway, R.; Goode, J.A.; Brown, S.N.;Broom, D.M.(1999). Travel sickness and meat quality in pigs. Animal Welfare 8(1):3-14.

Kettlewell, P.J.; Hoxey, R.P.; Hampson, C.J.; Green, N.R.; Veale, B.M.; Mitchell, M.A.(2001). Design and operation of a prototype mechanical ventilation system forlivestock transport vehicles. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 79(4): 429-439.

Warriss, P.D. (1998). Choosing appropriate space allowances for slaughter pigstransported by road: a review. The Veterinary Record: Journal of the British VeterinaryAssociation 142(17): 449-54.

Zanella, A.J.; Duran, O. (2001). Pig welfare during loading and transportation: a NorthAmerican perspective. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Virtual Conference on PorkQuality: Welfare, Transport, Slaughter and Consumer, Concordia, Brazil, November 16-December 16, 2000, EMBRAPA Suinos e Aves Documentos, 69, p. 20-31. Available online at: http://www.cnpsa.embrapa.br/pork/indice.en.html

Books and Proceedings

American Society of Agricultural Engineers (2000). Swine Housing: Proceedings of theFirst International Conference: October 9-11, 2000, Des Moines, Iowa. AmericanSociety of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan, ASAE publication 701P0001, 401p.

Ault; D. (1999). Swine Source Book: Alternatives for Pork Producers, Alternative SwineProduction Systems Program, University of Minnesota Extension Service: St. Paul, Minn.

Cowart, R.P.; Casteel, S.W. (2001). An Outline of Swine Diseases: A Handbook, 2nded., Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa, 191 p.

EMBRAPA (2001). Proceedings of the 1st International Virtual Conference on PorkQuality: Welfare, Transport, Slaughter and Consumer, November 16- December 16,2000, Concordia, Brazil, EMBRAPA Suinos e Aves, 251 p.Available online at: http://www.cnpsa.embrapa.br/pork/indice.en.html

Harmon, J.(2001). Swine Breeding and Gestation Facilities Handbook MidWest PlanService: Ames, Iowa, 103 p.

Straw, B.E. (1999). Diseases of Swine Iowa State University Press: Ames, Iowa, 8th ed., 1209 p.

University of Minnesota Extension Service (2001). Hogs Your Way: Choosing a HogProduction System in the Upper Midwest, Minnesota Dept. of Agriculture: St. Paul, MN,82 p.

Varley, M.A.; Wiseman, J. (2001). The Weaner Pig: Nutrition and Management CABIPublishing: Wallingford, UK; New York, 336 p.

-86-

Whittemoore, C.T. (1998). The Science and Practice of Pig Production Blackwell Science:Oxford; Malden, Mass, 2nd ed., 624 p.

Note: A resource guide "Information Resources on Swine Housing, Care and Welfare"contains these citations and hundreds more. It is available through the Animal WelfareInformation Center at http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/pubs/swinehousing/swinehousing2.htm.The guide contains a listing of training materials and useful web sites, as well as anextensive review of the literature.

-87-

Appendix G

Resource List of Farmers

Larry R. MillerNational Program Leader, Animal Sciences

USDA/CSREES

A list of field experts on swine housing and management systems is being developed toassist producers evaluate alternative production systems. The intent is to identify one or twoproducers from each hog producing state, and generic references for all states, where afarmer can go for advice regarding swine housing and retrofitting existing housing. Inaddition, generic sources would be available for each state, such as the Extension Serviceand American Farm Bureau Federation contacts. A disclaimer will be at the beginning of thelist to indicate that farmers on the list have limited time and will only respond at theirconvenience, preferably through email but may also telephone. Telephone and other costswill be the responsibility of the person seeking advice. Each farmer contact should have aspart of the information, a one or two sentence summary of their area of interest or expertise. Names included in this list does not imply endorsement by the USDA, and are providedstrictly as examples for educational programs.

-88-

-89-

Appendix H

Summary of Evaluations

Richard ReynnellsNational Program Leader, Animal Production Systems

USDA/CSREES

EVALUATION

Swine Housing and Well-Being Symposiumas part of the Kent Pork Academyon the Eve of the World Pork Expo

June 5, 2002

Des Moines Marriot Hotel, Des Moines, Iowa--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

please circle your answer

1 = POOR -----------to--------->>>> OUTSTANDING = 5

Please take the time to fill out the evaluation. Use the back of the form if necessary.WHAT WAS YOUR OPINION OF:

1. Overall Program? 1 2 3 4 5Number 1 8 3Average 50/12 = 4.2

Comments:Very good---I learned a lot.Excellent informative presentations by all speakers.Need for this type of information is great. Would have been fair to invite an animal welfareorganization to present their concerns instead of being subjected to speculation by speakers. They should have been represented on the program.

1. Facilities? 1 2 3 4 5Number 1 4 6Average 49/11= 4.5

Comments:Cold rooms

3. Food?Luncheon 1 2 3 4 5Number 1 5 5Average 48/11 = 4.4

-90-

Coffee Breaks 1 2 3 45Number 1 2 4 2Average 33/9 = 3.7

Comments:It would have been nice to have a larger break between the last two sessions

2. SESSION ONE STOCKMANSHIP AND TRAINING OVERALL SESSION (9:30 - 11:30) 1 2 3 45

Number 1 2 2 3Average 31/8 = 3.9

E. INTRODUCTIONStan Curtis 1 2 3 4 5Number 1 2 1 4 3Average 39/11 = 3.5

F. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONSRay Stricklin 1 2 3 4 5Number 1 1 3 4Average 37/9 = 4.1

G. RESOURCE AVAILABILITY, MODELS AND TRAINING PROGRAMSCindi Smith 1 2 3 4 5Number 3 1 3 3Average 36/10 = 3.6

H. OVERVIEW OF EVALUATIONOF STOCKMANSHIPPeter English 1 2 3 45Number 7 3Average 43/10 = 4.3

Comments for the Session:

Very Informative.The room was very cold.Outdated combative attitude toward consumer concerns---no place for this anymore inagriculture of 21st century; it hasn’t served producers well in the past and not now.

3. SESSION TWOPRACTICAL SOW HOUSING SYSTEM DESIGNOVERALL SESSION (1:00 - 3:00) 1 2 3 45Number 5 7Average 55/12 = 4.6

-91-

A. STALL SYSTEM John McGlone 1 2 3 45Number 1 4 8Average 59/13 = 4.5

B. PEN SYSTEMEd Pajor 1 2 3 4 5Number 2 4 7Average 57/13 = 4.4

C. EXTENSIVE/PASTURE SYSTEMMark Honeyman 1 2 3 4 5Number 1 2 3 7Average 55/13 = 4.2

D. LARGE GROUP SYSTEMRebecca Morrison 1 2 3 4 5Number 1 4 8Average 59/13 = 4.5

Comments for the Session:Good objective presentations.Good historical overview---somewhat cynical.Question space needs in small pens systems for social recognition not adequatelyaddressed.

3. SESSION THREECONSUMER PERSPECTIVESOVERALL SESSION (3:00 - 5:00) 1 2 3 45Number 1 1 5Average 32/7 = 4.6

A. CONSUMER ATTITUDES & LEGISLATIONTerri Dort 1 2 3 4 5Number 1 2 5Average 35/8 = 4.4

B. OVERVIEW OF NICHE MARKETS...PROCESS VERIFIEDJames Riva 1 2 3 4 5Number 1 3 4Average 35/8 = 4.4

C. IMPACT OF INTERNATIONAL MARKETSMark Ritchie 1 2 3 4 5Number 4 5Average 41/9 = 4.6

-92-

Comments for the Session:Good speakers.A lot of very small print (Dort)

Please provide us with your suggestions for TOPICS for training, retraining andeducational programs (for example, videos, brochures, manuals, etc.). Also, whatauthors or universities would you like to see as part of the project?

Short printouts of the outlines for the talks.Invite an actual animal welfare group to speak for itself on concerns.

If you choose to not complete the evaluation at the meeting, please return it to:Richard D. Reynnells, NPL-Animal Production Systems, USDA/CSREES/PAS800 9th Street SW, Room, 3130 Waterfront CentreWashington, DC 20250-2220T#: 202.401.5352F#: 202.401.6156; 1706 e-mail: rreynnells@reeusda.gov